User talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Control freak.[edit]

You’ve really gone overboard. Maradona, Pele, and Messi are regarded as the greatest ever. Just because you have thousands of edits and have been on this page, doesn’t mean you’re right. Seriously, quit being ignorant. SonqreQ (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SonqreQ:, please read, understand, and follow the No personal attacks policy. If you have something substantive to say, I will reply. Until then, I don't see any reasons to continue engaging in non-productive complaints. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Dunham[edit]

Please state your personal interest in this article. Thank you.

86.132.130.243 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're welcome. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.132.130.243 is now adding information to page Dean Dunham that you have previously deleted due to being breach of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfe2017 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfe2017:, I have started a discussion about this user at the Administrator's noticeboard. You may contribute anything you feel necessary there if you wish. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metro Systems[edit]

Could you please explain why you reverted my last edit on the List of metro systems article? In your edit summary it's written Changes not supported by sources, but I really do think this doesn't apply to any extent to my edit, since what I did was merely trying to undo a revision which is contrary to a long-standing and strong consensus, not consistent with the already existent side note and with the "Legend" section (that clearly explains how the "year opening" column's cells should be filled). Moreover, it's not even really true that the figure I restored is not supported by the provided source ([1]), as you have asserted, given that anyone who cares enough to open that page can read "1890 - On 18 december, The City and South London Railway opens the world's first deep-level electric railway. ..." and the whole introductory/general part of this article strongly emphasizes the importance of electrification as a requirement. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@93.57.255.93:, the change you made to the Moscow Metro network length was not supported by the source. The length of the Moscow Metro is not indicated anywhere in that source and the way pending changes works, to reject the one I needed to reject both. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one who made the change to the Moscow Metro network length wasn't me, but another editor, 213.87.139.48, and that edit was made after mine. I don't know exactly how the pending changes works in details, but I do have the feeling that trowing in a same barrel "goods" and "bads" edits from distinct contributors, albeit convenient, isn't for sure the way this process is intended to go (see this guideline). Now I'll make the edit again, hoping to find a more careful and well-disposed reviewer. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you eventually accepted my second attempt of editing: thank you and my apologies if my foregoing complaint might have seemed rude. Best regards, 93.57.255.93 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was the thought that counted[edit]

I cannot tell you were her fan club (cult? family?) really understands. I have never seen them engage in meaningful discussion. (They're like the Romulans between the Earth-Romulan War and Star Trek TOS episode "Balance of Terror". No one knows much about them.) Thanks for trying to help them understand. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. AGF may not work very often, but it still counts for something, sometimes. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Scaramella[edit]

Thank you for your note, @Eggishorn. Indeed I think you made a mistake, my claims were backed by a source in English: an article from the "The Independent" (a reputable British newspaper) from 2015. Please take extra care to evaluate other supposedly "clear and well documented " claims. Happy new year! Mrtno (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrtno:, if you had taken extra care to read my note fully, you'd have seen I said that the Independent is a generally reliable source, but that commentaries, editorials, and other opinion pieces in such generally reliable sources are not for BLP purposes. Such pieces are reliable sources only for the opinion of those taking responsibility for them (i.e., the author or iorgqanization whose byline appears or the editorial board for unsigned editorials). We cannot base factual claims in BLP articles on them. Context is vital to all RS determinations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:James_Douglas-Hamilton,_Earl_of_Arran_and_Cambridge[edit]

Thanks for your message. The point is that there is no such person but it has linked to an existing person. I'm not sure how to cite an imaginary person. The 16th Duke of Hamilton married in 2011 - so how he had a child born in 2000 is not clear. If the child did exist, it would not have a title. All just nonsense.Sebmelmoth (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebmelmoth:, I presume you mean "...how he had a legitimate child..." above. I'm not sure if you are asking for something here or just trying to clarify what you said about this article on the BLP Noticeboard. If the former, please tell me what you would like to have happen and I'll try to direct you accordingly. If the latter, the article qualified under the criteria for speedy deletion whether such a person is imaginary or not, either as a hoax article or as an attack article. The deletion was carried out correctly for one of those reasons but could equally have been ascribed to the other. Either way, you were right that it didn't belong here. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I am happy enough that the article has gone.Sebmelmoth (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But not that it has re-appeared today - what should I do? Just report here?Sebmelmoth (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebmelmoth:, I've tagged it for speedy deletion so it should be removed shortly. I have no problem with continuing to do this if you wish to keep letting me know, but you can also tag it yourself. There are two ways to do it, manually or using an editing tool called Twinkle. To manually tag it for speedy deletion, edit the page and place this at the very top of the page: {{db-hoax|help=off}}. To use Twinkle, you have to first install it by enabling the "Twinkle" gadget in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page and then follow the instructions here. I note that this time, they've tried to make it look more like a legit page by including some references but those references actually contradict the article completely. If they keep doing it, they will earn another block. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I've not come across this kind of thing before. Disagreements yes, resolvable in discussion but mindless nonsense (about people I do know) seems without point.Sebmelmoth (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebelmoth:, no problem. I note that this is coming from an IP address near Sydney, Australia. I'm guessing this and the age implies a student on their summer break, which will end some time around the end of January. I'll certainly keep an eye out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Light Power edit request[edit]

Hi, you responded to an earlier edit request on the Brilliant Light Power page by an editor, are you still watching that talk page for edit requests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.180.138 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Why? Do you have a question or suggestion? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind having a look at the edit request and respond on the Talk page?49.199.182.82 (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Belichick[edit]

How can reiterating something in the article "not conform to our policies" ? 90.200.171.185 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You placed two maintenance template tags in the article that implied the assertions in the article, which were wikilinked correctly, were incorrect. This is simple vandalism and therefore does not conform to our policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was "EricEnfermero". I suggest everyone imagining that vandalism take a look at the article, perhaps with a cross reference to some proper football sources !! 90.200.171.185 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you imagine that CBS does not count as a "proper" football source, Ilford IP user? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did place two maintenance tags, just hoping to raise awareness (without creating an edit war) that 1) "ranks equal third" isn't really a coherent phrase, and 2) that the cited source describes him passing Landry on the all-time wins list with 271. The tags were not intended to have anything in the world to do with wikilinks or vandalism. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is "...tied for third...", which is sourced at the end of that very sentence and linked to our article on coaching wins, listing Belichick third, acceptable?. How is this difficult to verify? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On my end, here are the first two sentences of the source: "With the Patriots’ win over the Oakland Raiders in Mexico City on Sunday, Bill Belichick now sits alone for the third-most wins in NFL history. Sunday’s victory was Belichick’s 271st career win as a head coach, passing legendary Cowboys coach Tom Landry on the prestigious list." I just don't get this... or how any of this on either side of this misunderstanding could be thought to be the deliberate disruption that would fall under WP:Vandalism. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The very sentence you are asking about states: "...and currently tied for third all-time in regular season coaching wins in the NFL at 250, and first in playoff coaching wins with 26." 250+26=276. The List of National Football League head coaches with 50 wins article lists Bill Belichick third, with 36 regular season wins while head coach of the Cleveland Browns and 214 regular season wins as coach of the New England Patriots. 214+36=250. It also lists 1 playoff win with the Browns and 25 with the Patriots. 1+25=26 The definition of vandalism used here includes: Vandalism that is harder to spot... abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. does that answer the questions? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never before been under the impression that it was a good idea to use WP articles as references for other WP articles. In my experience, we verify WP content with references at the end of a sentence or passage. And I am just really kind of speechless that you'd bring up "hindering the improvement of pages" here, especially after our discussion. I don't think my track record is consistent with that at all, so surely we can drop that silliness now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not referring to you, but to the IP user when I made reference in the edit summaries to vandalism. They were adding back tags that fit the definition you asked for. If that's silliness, then I'm using a different definition of what silliness is. As to the rest, I'm still baffled as to how the phrase "tied for third ...at 250" is needing any kind of clarification or other maintenance tag when the source and our other article confirm them. But, just in case, here is pro-football reference's Bill Belichick page listing 250 regular season wins and 26 playoff wins. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to create the draft page?[edit]

Thank you for your help. How to create the draft page? Where I can find this info? I would like to submit one more document which currently I keep in my sandbox. Linio LiniO (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LiniO:, the best answer I can give you is to read the Your First Article help page. It explains the whole creation of a page process there. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash[edit]

Extended content

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash[edit]

The article 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash[edit]

The article 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States Flag[edit]

Hello, I reviewed your denial of my request (on 1 January 2018) to add small details about flag color rations. Your explanation contends that my content is Original Research. It is not because the calculations to come up with the ratios are based on mathematical formulae (that are well established) and official specifications of the flag (as published in the same article). I can easily provide those in the body so that it is clear (as opposed to providing a link elsewhere). Again, I feel this is not Original Research so if I rewrite it with all of the calculations, will you please reconsider my request? BaronRunsFast (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BaronRunsFast:, you need to re-read the No Original Research policy more closely, particularly this bit: ...material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The ratios you proposed are facts that your calculate and offer an Excel spreadsheet of your own design to substantiate. No matter how minor you feel the originality of your personal contribution may be, that is still original research which has not been previously published. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Article[edit]

Hello, I was under the impression that Wikipedia was used to promote knowledge. i recently received a message stating that I should not use it to promote my business, if I create a user account with no business affiliation then would that make my article suggestion adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BizTraffic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BizTraffic:, did you bother to read the instructions on the page where you posted your business promotion? If you had, you would have seen this: All requests must contain RELIABLE, INDEPENDENT, THIRD PARTY SOURCES. Those without will be removed. emphasis in original Your user name indicates that you have an interest in promoting businesses without regard for our notability policies so I will state this clearly: your "impression" could not be more wrong.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing....Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources... Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts.

Thank you for your compliance with these policies in the future. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,I am new to Wikipedia and I was attempting to add a business to be suggested but I am not sure how the website works. I am sure many of the businesses that were suggested were of self interest as well. Second I tried to read up on what third party articles were considered to be reliable but I could not find the criteria when searching and the information I did find did not give me an understanding of what was truly required. Third I may not have completely read your comment and if that is the case I apologize. The only information I saw was that it was posted with self interest. I will try and find reliable third party sources and will attempt to suggest an article again when I have learned how to fully utilize the interface, but please be nicer when addressing users. I asked a simple question that was not meant to be rude and was addressed rudely. You may have courage to treat people badly hiding behind a screen but that doesn't mean you have the right to disrespect others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BizTraffic (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BizTraffic:, "respect" is not defined as "acquiescence". It is not "rude" to expect people to be responsible for their mistakes. If you didn't read instructions that are extremely clearly marked, whose mistake is that? It is not disrespectful of me to point that out. Far from it, it shows respect for you by assuming you have the ability to read, understand, and follow instructions. If you now feel chagrined over what I said, I suggest it is not because I said it badly. There is, in fact, nothing insulting about what said. Indeed, the majority of my statement is simple quoting from policies and guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just because you use a large word does not mean anything. You are rude and that's that. I did accept my mistake and I said I was sorry so get over it. I said you were rude so accept the fact that you're not really the nicest person. It's life, and I will leave it at that. Thank you for your help and I will continue to do research on Wikipedia's guidelines and I hope you have a good day and I will find other places to post because this site is obviously for people who live their lives coding and on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BizTraffic (talk • contribs) 15:53, January 18, 2018 (UTC)

@BizTraffic:, you say you don't like me using large words. Fair enough. I'll use small ones. As a business owner myself, I know what you're likely feeling. You made a mistake, tried to criticize me for your mistake, got called on your mistake in a very clear way, and are now embarrassed. You feel a need to soothe your ego by calling me rude when the language I've used is nothing worse than professional. Look at the silver lining: you learned that Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your business. There are many, many other options for business promotion on the internet and I suggest you try those. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh you love to argue! I'm not even the business owner! I'm a friend of the owner and I was trying to create a page for him because I legitimately think he has a good business. You don't know everything but you do obviously love to argue. Obviously the only way this is going to end is if I stop responding so again have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BizTraffic (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National trauma[edit]

On 20 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National trauma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that wars, battles, assassinations, and natural disasters can all cause national trauma? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National trauma. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, National trauma), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

School Shootings[edit]

Hello, It looks like you were the last to edit the list of school shootings page, so I thought I would let you know about one you missed. In May of 2001, at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Wa, a man came on campus and shot and killed a professor and injured several other students. The only reason more students weren't killed or injured is that the professor, Dr. James Holloway, threw himself in front of them to shield them from the barrage of bullets. I was him die as this occurred right outside of an art class I was in. I'd check the spelling of course on the names and the actual date. I know there are several articles about it still available online. Thank you for listening. Have a good day.

Nancy Cowden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:5d03:74c0:49d2:c9c8:bf63:ab26 (talk) 11:37, January 26, 2018‎

I will look for information but I should say that this list is never likely to be fully complete so missing an event isn't any reflection of a lack of importance. Any shooting, whether it occurs in a school or not, is a traumatic and important event and I'm sorry that you were affected. If an event is missing it is generally because the editors putting the list together didn't see coverage in reliable sources and that may be because it wasn't covered or because the coverage existed but wasn't found. I think you are referring to this event, yes? If this is the correct event, then there are obviously sources for it as you say. Let me know if I have the right one and I'll add it for you.
For future reference, requests like this needn't be routed through any particular editor. Every article on Wikipedia has a talk page and the one for this article is Talk:List of school shootings in the United States. If you go there, you can place and edit request and any editor that has at least 10 edits and is at least 4 days old can answer it for you. I'm not the gatekeeper or anything. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms. Cowden:, I don't know if you're still listening, but I went ahead and added this event to that list anyway. I'm fairly certain there isn't any ambiguity in matching your description to the article I used as a reference. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Stewart Nationality[edit]

There is an article List of British Grammy Award winners and nominees, not seperate for England or Scotland, so his nationality is just British, not 3 or 4. What do u mean by timesinks? Have you ever to articles such as List of Argentine Academy Award winners and nominees and such lists for even countries like Pakistan (just a single nominee Sharmin Obaid Chinoy), Brazil etc. If such lists of every country by its Oscar winners can exist, similar lists for Grammy can also exist. If you are not double standard, please go and nominate all these Academy Award by country articles for deletion. These articles are also timesinks, I think. মাখামাখি (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@মাখামাখি:, first, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, please read WP:CIR. Your grasp of English usage is not strong and I urge you to consider the Wikipedia project that is in your native language. You can see a list of those at meta:List_of_Wikipedias. To address your mish-mash of objections, however, every single time we start defining popular people by nationality there are problems. You obviously don't know about the endless debates about whether Scottish is a separate nationality from English which may or may not also be separate from British, and Rod Stewart was born English to Scottish parents and had a British passport but now lives in the United States and carries an American one. That's four separate nationalities for just one Grammy winner and there would be many, many more disputes. Each of which takes time and debate to solve, which is what a timesink means (it's something into which you futilely sink an investment of time). And lastly, please also read WP:NPA and refrain in the future from accusing other editors of having double standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@মাখামাখি:, I almost forgot: You should also read, understand, and follow WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your points clear in that discussion and continuing to make them doesn't strengthen your position. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaromír Jágr[edit]

We're having a bit of trouble keeping WP:SPECULATION about what this means for his career as a whole off the article, whether he'll hang up the skates at the end of this season or continue outside the US for any number of seasons to come. Please make sure that when you add a citation to an existing statement that all the details in said statement are confirmed in the source you attach, especially if the citation you add is the only citation that statement has; someone had written that this likely means the end of his NHL career, and while it probably does, that's not our place to say, and the source you added to that statement doesn't say that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeke:, I think you may have seen my edits mixed in with others. The statement I added was merely that he had cleared waivers to HC Kladno and it was cited to an ESPN article. I see from the history that there's been a flurry of other edits, some sourced and some unsourced, and my source may have gotten removed. Thanks for the note. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for edit[edit]

As to adhere to the BLP policy, material displayed cannot be poorly sourced - the information displayed about Mr Bjorn is purely speculative as the text points out; “Danish media reported”. The claim that Mr Bjorn also “cut relations with Leniartek” is unsourced and therefore potentially libellous. As such the personal information displayed should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.177.139 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@193.240.177.139: See my reply at the applicable article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI reports[edit]

When filing SPI reports, please be sure to carefully follow the instructions at WP:SPI. If a report isn't structured correctly, (like this for example), the bot that populates the "Cases currently listed" section won't see it, and if it's not listed chances are the clerks probably won't see it either. If in doubt, use twinkle so that it handles all of the formatting for you. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik:, thank you for the correction. I generally use Twinkle's ARV for that type of stuff but I cannot now think of why I didn't that time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dean dunham[edit]

You have previously intervened when user 86.132.130.243 edited the page: Dean Dunham. The same user is now doing this again but from IP address: 86.138.99.190.

This page is clearly being used as a platform to attack Dean Dunham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.16.198 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing valid biographical information from this article.

It seems that you may be the subject of this article or someone working with him. As such, you are breaching Wikipedia rules. Please desist.

Thank you. ADRrain (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ADRrain:, you still haven't read WP:BLPPRIMARY, have you? As you've been told multiple times, don't add information to a biographical article sourced or referenced from primary sources, it's that simple. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Oh come on. He followed me there after I reverted him at Northern Cyprus. Plain as day. And I'm not supposed to point that out? Spare me the sanctimonious lectures, will you? Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You have been here long enough to know that WP:BLANKING ...is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents.
  2. @Khirurg:, if you want to accuse another editor of something, I really, really recommend reading that link about aspersions. No matter how clear you think it is, the ArbCom has several times stated that such things require evidence others can evaluate for themselves. Accusing other editors of genocide denialism is clearly in that category, for example.
  3. Sarcasm and similar forms of humor are notoriously difficult to discern over text channels, so I will chose to believe that your "sanctimonious" comment was meant as such. Otherwise, it would beggar belief to think that one editor, who has done nothing but sanctimoniously attempt to censor and correct every other participant in a discussion, would chose to seriously apply that term to another. It would be a ludicrous lapse of self-awareness, right? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, unlike some of the other participants at the AfD, you seem like a reasonable fellow, so I will try to reason. In the case of Akocsg, he clearly voted at the AfD to spite me, after I reverted him at Northern Cyprus. And there are diffs to prove it, I am happy to present them wherever required. It's also the kind of thing that's not immediately obvious by reading the AfD, so it needs to be pointed out. Similarly with the ethnic bloc voting. Pointing out such shenanigans is not WP:OWN, or any such thing. Nor is it obvious what is going by just reading the AfD. You are more than welcome to point out similar shenanigans by those voting "delete" if you come across them. There is nothing wrong with that and I won't hold it against you, however, I doubt you will find any. As for the tone of your posting on my page, yes the tone was highly sanctimonious. That is a very apt characterization. Khirurg (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for the vote of confidence. I obviously disagree that the ethnic bloc voting is not obvious. AfD's such as this are to ethnic POV-warriors like porchlights are to moths and the usual AfD closing admins are aware of those issues. If you think that actual abuse is happening, then WP:AIV, WP:RFPP or WP:SPI might be helpful. I don't think there's currently anything that would be accepted at those venues but I will keep my eyes open and ping you if I see something that merits reporting. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia has not emigrated[edit]

Ha, ha! I think you should correct your recent post on Sonia's Talk. I am certain you did not mean that Australian soap. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, you wouldn't accept the old, "I was just testing you to see if you were paying attention" line, would you? Oh, Didn't think so. Oops. Thanks for the heads-up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Exo Platform[edit]

  • Keep - Hello, I want to have acces on the page to modify the sources ... Otherwise, quote me the references to remove and the necessary recommendations to optimize this page and to be publish...

Please can you give some recommendation to keep it published and to delete the box?

Bjaouane (talk)14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjaouane:, the simplest and honest answer is: No, I will not help you keep the article. As has been explained many times already, Wikipedia is not for advertising and articles about commercial products or companies are not your profiles. Similarly, Wikipedia is not for promoting a product, service, or company but instead reflects when a product, company or service has become noteworthy in the eyes of others.
It is evident that you haven't either read or understood the information provided to you so far. There are really only three things you need to read. Read this content guideline and you will see this is not about bad references. Read this notability guideline and you will see the standards that are being applied to this article. Read this discussion and you will see what has been objected to. Read, understand, and follow all of those before you proceed or else your time on this project will be very frustrating.
The bottom line is this: There is not enough current evidence that this software or its creators have achieved significant, independent coverage in reliable media sources to justify retention. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bjaouane (talk)16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)I just want to be able to change and modify to make this page in Wikipedia standards[reply]
Bjaouane (talk)16:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC) You can help me to make it without promotions. It's a page for a recognized company. Thank you for recommending me the changes to make for a healthy page that will be published.[reply]
@Bjaouane:, frankly it does not matter what you want. It especially does not matter what you want when it has become crystal clear that you either aren't reading or aren't understanding the advice you're being given by several experienced editors. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia and that competence includes both the ability to follow directions and the ability to express yourself clearly in English. If you cannot express yourself clearly in English, then the English-language Wikipedia may not be the place for you and you should instead look into whichever Wiki caters to your language skills. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The latest discussions was for the software page that was removed. For this page, I just want to edit the references and information to eliminate promotional messages and update it if it is possible. Otherwise, I am a beginner on Wikipedia and that is why I ask many time how to edit and contribute. Now, I'm not able to edit this page and follow directions. Thank you for your answers ... Bjaouane (talk)22:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjaouane:, you still fail to understand: you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. By that I mean you should not edit Wikipedia at all. You can't communicate in English competently and you are trying to use the project for commercial promotion. These two qualities are both disqualifying. Stop using the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the article List of companies of India[edit]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018[2]
I have requested a minor change which was an error by other user. It has been solved by that user. Kindly remove Not Done tag!
R0101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R0101:, that tag isn't removed just because later edits occurred and it isn't some red badge of shame to your request. I see no reason to remove it nor any reason why you should care that it is there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to thank you so much for your help with the snakebite article. The answer to my question, when I saw it was obvious. D'uh, as they say. :-D I'll try to do more of this sort of thing so I get the hang of it--most of my article edits are simply grammatical ones. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.242.175 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've placed a welcome message on your user talk page with some links to help you find your way around. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very mutch!👍on your work in here (wikipedia)ÎMÀD-MØRØČČÕ (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC) ÎMÀD-MØRØČČÕ (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Close page[edit]

Hello. I am Sienna Shields and that NYtimes article was never fact checked by me. It contains information that was already obsolete when it was published because Chuck Close handed me separation papers on July 23, 2015. Right before that reporter came to the house. Kindness59 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kindness59:, thank you for replying. If the New York Times article is wrong, you should get them to print some sort of retraction or correction. I personally do not doubt you are Ms. Shields (or at least close to Ms. Shields) but you must understand that we can't just accept the assertions of semi-anonymous users about people. In fact, we have a Biographies of living persons policy that requires use to get verification of all substantiative claims about people. This applies to claims about both you and Mr. Close. I will look for some sort of sourcing that will allow us to to remove the information. Thank you again for contacting me and for clarifying the situation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because they don’t care about the truth. When you are powerful the NYtimes is in your pocket. Kindness59 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kindness59:, I found a clear statement that is verifiable and will update our article. I apologize for the obvious stress this has caused. Thanks you again for your assistance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is totally distressing and impacts my life negatively. Kindness59 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, @Kindness59:, I personally apologize for any increase in stress my comments caused and I also apologize that our policies sometimes put persons such as yourself in the position of not being believed. I have some related experience and can sympathize with your very justifiable frustration. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravioli Controversy[edit]

troll

You win this time, egg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamboyeatsyams (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamboyeatsyams:, I don't know if that means you will stop attempting to make these changes. I hope it does. I was literally in the process of fashioning a report for the edit warring noticeboard when you sent this. Can you clarify if you are ceasing your efforts to add this meme to the article? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eggishorn, if I were to contribute to the sandwich article with the ravioli controversy, would that cause a report? :( With love, yamboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamboyeatsyams (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Sorry, tips on how to get the controversy added would be nice thought since I can't use the website. Love, yamboy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamboyeatsyams (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To: Eggishorn[edit]

Best Egg Award
4 being the best Yamboyeatsyams (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...[edit]

for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why our page is being proposed for deletion.[edit]

Hello,

You have proposed our page for deletion on the grounds that there are no references other than our own studies; however, we have 24 references to scientific studies. No, they aren't all directly about QNR, but they provide information about the brain that would help people to see why QNR could work. If 24 scientific studies doesn't qualify as sufficient referencing, what exactly does?

76.69.79.117 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainwellnessspa:/ Ip user, the Quantum Neuron Recoding article and your approach to it as an editor was problematic on several levels. I will list these with appropriate links so you can find the policies involved:
  1. The site's Terms of Use apply. You agreed to follow these when you created your account and even now, when using this IP address, those Terms of Use still apply just via your posting on the site.
  2. By asking about "our page" your question indicates that you are the same entity behind the Brainwellnessspa account. The policy on using multiple accounts regards editing both while logged in and using a named account and while logged out and identified solely through IP address as use of multiple accounts. Using multiple accounts for some purposes is acceptable, but using them for: ...attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is not.
  3. The question about "our page" also indicates the possibility of shared use of these accounts by more than one individual. The rule here is "one person, one account" so you should be aware of that.
  4. That also raises the possibility of regarding a Wikipedia article as "yours" in the same way that a Facebook profile or a business web page belongs to that business. This is also problematic, as pages aren't ours at all. Those terms I linked above make it clear that we license our contributions to the owners of this site and allow those contributions to be both copied and altered by others.
  5. Turning to the content, text for your article was almost entirely self-plagiarized from a pdf on your commercial web page, which violated both the copyright respect policy and the policy on promotional use.
  6. You also need to read the What is a reliable source and Reliable sources for medical claims content guidelines. The original pdf was not a real scientific study but instead a survey and one with a questionable methodology. To the extent that the papers cited within that study were accessible through standard scientific publishing databases, I found that they were often used to justify claims made in the survey which were not supported by the original papers.
All in all, this article has every appearance of being an attempt to use this project to attract or retain customers and therefore this is promotional activity for which you may reasonable be considered to be expecting compensation (either directly or through increased customer activity). This type of activity is not allowed by the Terms of Use I referred to earlier: These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. I hope these links help explain both why the article was removed and why any attempt to recreate it will not be likely to work. Thank you for asking for clarification. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armalite AR15 semi-protected status[edit]

Three links have been posted on the talk page. Kiddos are reading the article thinking it's an assault rifle. Could you help them out, thanks!Boxofmatches (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion Exo Platform[edit]

Please, I need to know what's wrong with this page to make it visible. (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hagerty[edit]

Y'know, titles of TV shows should be written in italics. --92.20.136.72 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, referring to edits should at least provide a link to the article involved, especially when the edit was made by request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure why you're acting so defensively sarcastic. I apologise for those extra ten seconds you spent looking up the edit that you'll never get back, I suppose. --79.75.139.38 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because edit requests are just that -- requests. I don't know if there's a cross-cultural gap here or what, but my understanding is that the person who makes a request shouldn't be immediately ungracious to the person answering a request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider it "ungracious" to simply point out a mistake you made then goodness knows how you get any collaborative work done on Wikipedia because that's a level of sensitivity I've not come across before. I did appreciate you fulfilling my request, if that's what you really want to hear, but you shouldn't be expecting thanks for every little thing you do. And even if what I said had been intended as an uncivil remark, being snide back is not an appropriate response. 92.4.144.12 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian war template map[edit]

You asked for additional sources to confirm that Tall rifat area should be full RED . Here are opposition , russian defence ministry statement and map ,. and numerous sources confirming it , . Make those dots full red .


Additional sources : — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM1 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Opposition source : https://twitter.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/978955670929268741 Turkish Source : https://twitter.com/OperationAfrin/status/979397321938137089 Anhar al sham leader : https://twitter.com/WyvernReports/status/978638131497984002 Hezbollah oficial page : https://twitter.com/C_Military1/status/977526749121667073

Just in , Russian defence ministry statemend 30.03.2018 , published the map of syria , and whole Tall rifaat area under goverment control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZr4PKBrxrg , map on 7.12 second .

@AlexanderM1:, please read the links you were given earlier, specifically the guidance on what are considered reliable sources. The Twitter and YouTube you supply are, at the very best, sources that only demonstrate that these entities are making claims about the status of this town. They are not reliable sources for demonstrating those claims are correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lauren Jauregui[edit]

Template:Lauren Jauregui has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dispute cristian ronaldo page[edit]

Hello, could you please intervene on the cristiano ronaldo page, as the same old users from last year are again causing an edit war over the sentence 'considered the greatest of all time'. This has been discussed many times last year, with a consensus against using that sentence and instead using 'considered one of the greatest'. It is embarrassing to see these fans again making claims for which there are not enough credible sources to back them up. Thanks O'Flannery (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@O'Flannery:, I don't think I will have much effect on that discussion. The pro-Ronaldo fans are rejecting the very same arguments made in January. If they were going to be persuaded by those arguments now, they would have been persuaded then. I suggest that this follow the escalation prescribed by the dispute resolution policies. Thanks, and I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and I suspect you are right. I will look in to the escalation prescribed by the dispute resolution policies, thanks O'Flannery (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic IP possibly being used by topic banned user to get round ban. I've encountered this IP before who accused me of canvassing before. Seems only right. Nightfury 14:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfury: thank you for the notice and for raising this issue at ANI. I agree with your assessments there and in the SPI, but I don't currently have anything substantial to add to either, although the way the IP is arguing at the SPI only increases strengthens the impression. Thanks for the endorsement of my suspicions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Azmi Bishara's article[edit]

Hi Eggishorn , hope this finds u well. I'm still waiting ur review for the mentioned article. Plz help me in finishing it as possible as u can. Thanks in advance.--Zeidan87 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. [3] 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs[edit]

I provided some diffs at the sockpuppet case. Good find--and quite obvious in my opinion. Keep me updated, for if I can help gather more evidence or look at another sockpuppet. I am well-versed with this editor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graceful:, thank you for the assistance. I've been unable to attend to the request today as much as I would have liked so I really appreciate it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australians[edit]

For some reason you have reverted my edit to this article. The passage that I removed - "In 1819, Governor Macquarrie declared total warfare against the Walpuri people of Western New South Wales ...." was inserted by John D. Croft, who provided an incomplete citation. He is now subject to an indefinite block. Problems with the passage include:

  • the Walpuri people's country is in the Tanami desert region of orthern Territory near the WA border and at that time had no contact with Europeans
  • the newspapers of the time and Macquarie's diaries[1] make no mention of any major Aboriginal problems (ergo my comment that nothing much happened in 1819). Macquarie was not reticent in recording this sort of thing
  • Macquarie did initiate a major campaign of violence in 1816, documented in contemporay newspapers, his diaries[2] and in independent sources[3]

References[edit]

References

  1. ^ "1819". Lachlan & Elizabeth Macquarie Archive. Macquarie University Library. Retrieved 25 April 2018.
  2. ^ "1816". Lachlan & Elizabeth Macquarie Archive. Macquarie University Library. Retrieved 25 April 2018.
  3. ^ Organ, Michael K. (2014). "Secret Service: Governor Macquarie's Aboriginal War of 1816". Proceedings of the National Conference of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Mittagong, 25-26 October 2014. Sydney: Royal Australian Historical Society. Retrieved 25 April 2018.

regards, John beta (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John beta:, I haven't been able to get back to this for some time so I apologize for taking a while to respond. To answer your question, I reverted the edit through Pending Changes because, as the edit summary states, cited information was removed without an explanation that made sense. The edit summary you had left seems to presuppose a lot of familiarity with the subject and sources and did not adequately explain why the cited information was removed. The fact that the information may have been added by a blocked user does not require removal. The explanation that you pose above should be discussed on the talk page and then you can point to that in your edit summary the if you feel that consensus exists to remove the information. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Blake[edit]

Klgd98 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Hello can I ask to redirect Jameson Blake to itself. He is a notable actor now with so many movies. Kindly observe because actually I edited it. Thank you very much.[reply]

I have no plausible idea what you are asking, @Klgd98:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra FAC[edit]

Hello! Judging by the talk page archives, I see that you have shown a strong interest for the article Cleopatra in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it as a Featured Article Candidate? If so, please share your thoughts and critiques at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleopatra/archive1. It would be most appreciated. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

resolved

Biologist87657[edit]

Hi, In response to your recent message, I refer you to this section in: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Citing yourself Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.

Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologist87657 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biologist87657: Read the section you cited again fully. It says: "...defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it" That is what happened here. After multiple attempts, you made a coherent and answerable edit request that fell squarely within the bounds of WP:SELFCITE and it was reviewed. As an impartial editors, I have given my opinion that there is no secondary sourcing that indicates your research has had enough impact on the field or in general to be considered WP:NOTABLE. Please read the linked guideline and especially the part where it explains that Wikipedia definition of notability is not exactly congruent with standard English definitions of notability. Attempting to use a Wikipedia article to bring attention to your research is not a proper function of the project and can lead to editing restrictions. This is why I placed the notice on your page - so that you would be aware of the possibility of such restrictions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your clarification. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and I am unfamiliar with how all this works. I was only contributing to this subject because I have studied it for many years and published many peer-reviewed articles on it. I was also contributing in good faith by including my full name and not a pseudonym. Anyway, I reverted all my contributions to Wikipedia; now, please remove this embarrassing post from your talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologist87657 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the username for privacy reasons.Biologist87657 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Biologist87657[reply]

@Biologist87657:, I see no reason to be embarrassed about being confused on editing standards. It happens to every editor when they are new to this project and is part of the usual learning curve. Although I would nevertheless like to accommodate your request, I cannot delete this message. Unless a post falls within the limited criteria for removal, even if I hide it from immediate view on this page it remains in the page history, as do all contributions. I will collapse this entire conversation shortly, however, which will remove it from the view of casual passers-by (of which there is a very limited number). I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Hey! You might want to sign your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Vanjie Mateo. :) Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Thanks for helping clarify. Question, why do some news sources remain while others are flagged as a violation? I can't find consistent practice.--Mediazeitgeist (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mediazeitgeist:, it would help answer your question if you can point to two specific examples of what you mean. The phrase "...news sources...flagged as a violation" can be interpreted many ways and I don't want to misinterpret your question. In general terms, however, all article content must follow the Core Content Policies and content may be flagged or removed for multiple reasons if they violate those policies. Reproducing copyrighted text is, however, one of the fastest ways to see it removed as a copyright violation. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page messages[edit]

Please refrain from leaving passive aggressive messages on other members talk pages, this is not acceptable on Wikipedia and is generally frowned upon by the community. Regards, Wizked (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's simply amazing @that a user: here for all of three days has such a wonderful and thorough appreciation of Wikipedia community norms. Its even more amazing that a new user with such comprehensive understanding of community standards doesn't appear to understand that the message I left on your page was a community-sanctioned standard notice template directly related to your violation of of the also community-accepted talk page guidelines. In case it's not clear by now: No. I will not refrain from leaving informational messages on the pages of those that have obvious need of the information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav page[edit]

Hi Eggishorn

I added commendable sources to the Yadav page but Sitush vandalized it and removed it, and is unnecessary threatening me for no reason. he has a clear agenda because of his own caste. Please look into the recent changes I did on Yadav page, where I added multiple sources and references to make the article neutral. Shantanusingh10 (talk)Shantanusingh —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantanusingh10:, you have been blocked for using outdated sources to violate the WP:NPOV principle, which means that other editors do not agree that your sources are "commendable" or that the edits have been to make the article neutral. Wikipedia proceeds by a process of WP:CONSENSUS so the opinions of other editors are important and can't be simply ignored. Asking me for help isn't gong to achieve anything in this circumstance. You need to read the Guide to Appealing Blocks before you do anything else. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Write new things[edit]

We should write that on the early Christian period osrhoene, adiabene, hatra and assur had assyrian identity, s. 20, National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times by Simo Parpola

I know you said to put consensus but noone is discussing this with me, and its getting annoying that l can't edit to make the article better. There are also error with aramean is synonym to assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemrud91:, Being new at this is no problem. After all, every one of us, up to and including the founders of this web site, were new at this at one point. I should, however, let you know that the vast majority of users of this site are here voluntarily and you should not always expect fast response. I was traveling for the last day or so and couldn't respond to your messages earlier, for example.
Another thing you should know about in regards to lack of response on talk pages is that sometimes it is a response. "Silent consensus" is a situation where one editor proposes changes to an article on a talk page and, after a suitable wait, is allowed to resume that there are no objections and proceed. Important note: silent consensus is the weakest form of consensus and ceases to exists as soon as some other editor makes any objection or revert to the changes.
In order to make changes based on lack of objection, however, they need to be proposed with good, reliable, independent sources that are cited correctly. Every other interested editor needs to be able to verify that what you are claiming about the naming is supported by the sources you say they are.
Also, the proposal needs to be be both understandable in English and a concrete, specific change. I've read your user talk page and the edit request several times now and other than objecting to the demonym in some way, I'm not sure what actual change you'd like to see. If other users can't parse out your desired change, they won't respond. In that case, you are not seeing the type of silent consensus I referred to but lack of interest in the proposal.
In light of these points, my advice to you overall is this: Start a new discussion on the talk page. Start that discussion with identifying the exact text you think is wrong and the text you think should be included. Include the citations and sources that you think support the new text in that proposed new text. Provide any supplementary reasons for making the change after the proposed new text. Make sure the proposal is in grammatical English that follows the Manual of Style. If you can do all that, then you may be able ot see a better response.
I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence and fixed the problem l had[edit]

Check assyrian people page and see that l wrote what l want to be changed and l want also to put on new things, and the great thing is that l quoted with evidence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemrud91:, I'm not going to express an opinion on the substance of the the suggestion at this time, preferring to allow subject-matter experts to weight in. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Carollo edits[edit]

Why did you roll back those edits?

Each one was sourced and linked and the one Miami Herald story isn't published online, but it is available through Nexis.com which is itself a certified repository.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 13:04, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

@Spelunkingmerica:, this question has already been answered elsewhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if you're going to edit down what stays and goes, then choose from that entirely mainstream news aggregated entry.

There's nothing defamatory in there. All of the material is 17 years old or more and he never sued those newspapers, so what kind of claim would he have against Wikipedia?

Furthermore, the article as written covers both his racist remarks and his allegations of racism against others.

Lastly, he entered into a plea deal for beating his wife!! This is all public record information, and if that's defamatory, then please explain the #metoo movement.

Thanks Spelunkingmerica (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading a deleted article[edit]

Hi,

my name is Csongor, the author of the formerly deleted article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MRU_window-switching_order

I realized just right now that my contribution has been removed. I am trying to understand the reasons before asking for undeleting it or changing it. In order to do that, I would like to see the deleted content.

Is there any way for me to see what exactly was deleted? I worked a lot on it and did not make a backup. This is the first time when I completely lose a contribution so I hope there is a way to get my text back, even if the article won't be reset.

Thanks,

Csongor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csongorhalmai (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Csongorhalmai:, I suggest that you should use User talk:Premeditated Chaos, the talk page of the administrator who deleted it. Only an administrator has the ability to see deleted pages and I'm afraid I can't help you with that. You can ask that they provide you a copy of the deleted page text on one of your user pages. Even before that, however, I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:RS and WP:CITE. There is nothing to be gained if you resurrect the page only to have it deleted again just because it still violates the same policies. In particular, Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, not a collection of instructions. If you want to teach people about most-recently-used algorithms, there are other outlets which would likely welcome your contribution. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Oh, I think there is a fundamental confusion then. :) My article was not describing the most recently used algorithm_S_. It described only _one_ in detail which is called MRU. The reason why it is called MRU is that is assumes that the user wants to focus the most recently used window/tab/application/whatever when they leave the current one. I would like to read the text again so that I can fix it if there is anything that caused this confusion. The reason why I wanted to describe this article is that some not so user-friendly programs don't use this algorithm and it would be nice to see written down here how other popular programs (like MS Windows, MacOS, etc.) implement the window/tab changing logic. My article mentioned one different frequently used algorithm just for comparison to illustrate the benefits of the MRU algorithm. (Thanks for the WP:... references, i read them.) Csongorhalmai (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Csongorhalmai:, if there is some fundamental confusion, it is not over how MRU algorithms (yes, multiple) work. I have many years of experience as a technical writer in Windows OS environments. The fundamental confusion rather seems to be that the type of content you propose is suited for inclusion. How different programs tab-shift and what is good or not about these processes is exactly the type of content that WP:NOTHOWTO warns against. If you want to contribute to this project, I highly encourage you to do so but you should not recreate this article. There are literally tens of thousands of articles that need help, and your efforts on those are much more likely to be rewarding ad retained than any effort on recreating the deleted article. Time spent working on fixing articles is also a great way to gain experience and understanding of the type of articles that are likely to be successfully kept. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Your request[edit]

I don't have access to that email account at the moment, my apologies. I'll be able to look into it in about 5 hours, but if it needs immediate attention you might want to try another admin. Terribly sorry. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26:, no problem. You were just the first one in the category that I knew and seemed to be online. I'll try some-one else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to post the diff link on my talk page, I'll look into it and revdelete your request and also revdelete my talk page per WP:BEANS. Your choice. Thanks for all your contributions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26:, I just emailed TonyBallioni, who also seems to be online at this time. Thanks anyway. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni:, thank you very much for your very quick response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For helping restore my confidence in Wikipedia as a community! AlexisMichaud (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note[edit]

I reverted your NAC of the Huggems537 ANI because there is ambiguity about whether Alex intended to forestall a requirement for Huggems537 to appeal to the community to be unblocked or not. See my note in the thread. Cheers! Jbh Talk 18:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbh:, no problem. I have no objection and see your point. I honestly don't think it makes any practical difference in this case, but I see how it could matter in the future. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reply of your message to Talk:Sajal Aly[edit]

Sajal Aly appeared in drama serial Ladoon Mein Pali that too mention in her Television section but with wrong name i.e, Laadon Main Pali. We have to linked that work only :) Thank you for your kind response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.116.9 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at Talk:Sajal Aly. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on The Signpost admin piece.[edit]

I thought that they were very interesting, and well thought out. If you'd like to expand on them in a Signpost Essay of your own, please let me know. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:, thank you for your kind words. At this time, however, I am not ready to expand them. My question really is that: an honest question. It would be irresponsible of me to make an argument that I had not researched thoroughly and I have not yet done so. Thanks again, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I'd be interested to see what the actual statistics are overall. Let me know if you ever change your mind. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891:, I guess you gave me an idea I couldn't let go of. I've started work on a possible article and I'd like your feedback. I'm still compiling the statistics so most of the numerical fields are blank but I think I've seen enough to support the discussion and conclusions that are given. They may change if the final data does not support the current text, obviously. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly does seem interesting, and I don't really have much to say beyond the fact that I think it has a very good chance of being published. Obviously, it will go through some copyediting, but it seems very good so far. Thank you for taking this on! Eddie891 Talk Work 17:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, @Eddie891:. Do you know how long I have to work on this before the next issue? I don't see any deadlines in the Signpost submission stuff I've been able to find. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:POST/N, the deadline's set at 27 June. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs[edit]

How do I make an RFC and where is the page that it is done on? thanks!

Talatastan (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Talatastan:, the page with instructions for RfC's is available at this link. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet Investigation[edit]

This is not the proper forum for these complaints

I am Mo Baban yes, but truly feel I have been blocked unfairly. My 'obsession' with changing his nationality... his nationality is Finnish and he is a Kurd, that's what I hate seeing Iranian every time because it's not true. Could you please atleast help me? I have contributed to wikipedia a lot and being a 'sockpuppet' isn't all I am. I had so much fun before Ninja and a few guys kept changing it to iranian to be a troll. I will provide any proof you want, but please help me.I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobaban2019 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobaban2019:, no, I will most certainly not help you. The rules on running more than one account and for approaching content disputes are not difficult to either find, understand, or follow. You were warned about those rules and chose to ignore them. You were also given the correct links to the policy on appealing blocks and chose to forgo your options there in favor of continued evasion. That is a pattern of behavior I have no interest in assisting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing, I did try to unblock my main account because on there I was unblocked unfairly all I did was make a change from one thing to another which was a fact then I got blocked. Whenever I try to explain or try to get unblocked I get blocked again. Could you atleast change the Makwan page? I have shown you proof. That's all I want please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobaban2019 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mobaban2019:, I though I'd made this clear, but I don't have any interest in whether you thought it was fair. You were properly notified not to perform certain actions and you did them anyway. I therefore have no interest if fixing what you think is broken. Further requests here will get the same response. I cannot unblock you in any event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one notified me of anything. I was first editing many pages and got positive feedback. Then I edited Kianoush Rostami page then they said you can't change it to Kurdish even though the man is Kurdish. It shows there are many people who will do anything to remove 'KURDISH' from pages like Kianoush Rostami and Makwan. I was there to counter those people and give the right and reliable information. I was blocked simply because I put the right information on a Wikipedia page. Then I got blocked forever which to me is unfair. All I ever did was show proof and reliable sources whereas others just blocked me. You don't have to help me, but either way I will find a way. With or without you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobaban2019 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome[edit]

Hi Eggishorn. You have repeatedly dismissed a starightforward edit request for Ancient Rome. I believe you are sincere in stating that you do not see the problem, because the explanations you give involuntarily confirm the problem, namely that there is a discrepancy between the lead and the Histriography section. If you still do not see the problem, could you please invite an independent editor to take a look. If he/she also is unable to see the problem, I will give up and leave you in peace. Thanks in advance. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to invite anyone else nor do I. As I said, >1,200 editors are watching that page and receiving watchlist notices that you and I have edited it. In the 20 days since you first made your suggestion, a mere one of them has seen fit to contribute to the discussion. That says something right there.
Also, you are grossly misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said there was no "discrepancy". Whether the history of Rome starts in 800 BCE or not is not relevant to historiography. Removing "in historiography" from the lead does not address your complaint and does not "fix" this "discrepancy". It does nothing to help the reader and it has no positive effect on the article.
Finally, please do not split discussions in this way. It makes it difficult for others to follow. You already have my attention and do not need to repeat your arguments here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - I am discontinuing the discussion here and will move back to Ancient Rome. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

You reverted my edit on Alan Turing, was this because my opinion was biased or another reason. Thanks, Lcs_ylz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcs ylz (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning[edit]

We're wondering, over at WP:ANI#Cluebot NG keeps making out i am vandalising peoples working repeatedly, how this edit justified this warning? I see nothing remotely vandalistic about that edit (or indeed about the ones reverted by ClueBot, but that part's not your problem). Steve Smith (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible misidentification of edit[edit]

Information icon Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Alan Turing, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Please explain your rationale for identifying Lcs ylz's edit as vandalism. It looks like said edit is just a bold edit that is historically accurate. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why did you do that?[edit]

why did you do a thing like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williewinkie33 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Eggishorn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/* THE HATIAN INVASION of THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC THE TRUE HISTORY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE. */[edit]

This is not the proper forum for these complaints

hi someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. This person is making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title they placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there hatian people forced enslaved and KILLED thousands of Dominicans and also had racism, hatred against white hispanics. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title and article made by a anti dominican admin for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time and the two articles were made seperately please unmerge them and place the original article which was the Hatian INVASION of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC! the person who merged these two articles was anti DOMINICAN and ruining historical facts that were already placed on the original article! which was THE HATIAN INVASION of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, NOT THE UNIFICATION OF HISPANOLA that was never a historical fact please unmerge the articles and place the hatian invasion back where it was in the main article of the countries history please.190.166.157.141 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. This person is making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title they placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there hatian people forced enslaved and KILLED thousands of Dominicans and also had racism, hatred against white hispanics. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title and article made by a anti dominican admin for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time and the two articles were made seperately please unmerge them and place the original article which was the Hatian INVASION of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC! the person who merged these two articles was anti DOMINICAN and ruining historical facts that were already placed on the original article! which was THE HATIAN INVASION of the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, NOT THE UNIFICATION OF HISPANOLA that was never a historical fact please unmerge the articles and place the hatian invasion back where it was in the main article of the countries history please.190.166.157.141 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@190.166.157.141:I don't know why you are contacting me or what the issue really is. You should voice your concerns on the correct page's talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2018&oldid=1090445403"