User talk:Endymion.12/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Endymion.12, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Endymion.12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC) |
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Caliphatism. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @PRehse: Why keep the tag? I've asked for someone to delete the AfD discussion page I opened in error at RfD page. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Assume good faith
I have removed the template only once after specifically saying I would, and after specifically requesting additional discussion from you about the template on the article's talk page. You did not respond, so I removed the template. Do not call this "tendentious", per WP:AGF. Again, the burden is still on you to gain consensus for your edits. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Grayfell: Actually, you explained on the talk page that you would remove the template to “find out” whether my previous comment was really my last, which was hardly appropriate. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Ping
Hello, Endymion, I hope that you will come talk to us at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Formatting creep, yet again, just because we're really trying to figure out what's useful for an editor like you, and you're the perfect person to tell us. There is literally no wrong answer for you, and it would be incredibly helpful to us if you just talked us through your thought process. What parts of the page were useful, what parts were confusing, what parts were unnecessary? How much did you need to read?
We're currently talking about whether it's helpful to provide multiple formatting options, but we'd be happy to hear about any of it. You can start a new section on the talk page if you want. I would really appreciate hearing from you, no matter what you have to say about the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Bernard Mandeville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Francis Hutcheson
- Jean-François Melon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Luxury
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
ARBPIA
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Further, the ARBPIA topic area has a general editing restriction requiring all editors to have at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure. Please do not make edits that violate that prohibition, such as this. Thank you. nableezy - 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Nableezy: Can I have a reference for the last bit? Endymion.12 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. I am very much not implying there was anything wrong with your edit or edits, only that for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area you will need to wait until you have 500 edits to edit in article space. nableezy - 17:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Re:AN/I question
- "As a new user, I'd also be interested to know why no one is commenting on this. Am I in the wrong place?"
You're in the right place, but I wanted to write here to give you a a brief FYI about the AN and AN/I boards. Admins do frequent the boards, and we do act on matters, however the community holds us in high and low regard so when we act we need to make sure its not half-haphazardly. The more complex an issue, the angles to it, and the more its been replayed on the board the more apt you are to see slower replies from admins - particularly from those new to the admin corps who wish to take their time and familiarize themselves with the issue(s) before jumping in. Unless there is a really urgent matter (like a threat of physical harm against one's self or others) or a an issue that's been dealt with to death and therefore has a prescribed drill in place for what to do (legal threats, socking, etc), admins would prefer get context to go with their content for a fuller, richer, and better feel for the situation as a whole - particularly because in a good many cases people who present issues are in fact the ones most apt to have caused the issues in the first place. Simply because we have been or are being slow to reply doesn't mean we don't care, it just means that we want to get this right the first time for everyone's sake so we don't have to go over it again. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I reverted my changes in the page anything else????? Zozr789 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Edits on Social Liberal Party (Brazil)
Hi Endymion. You sent me a message saying that for the edits on "Social Liberal Party (Brazil)", I would be banned if I make more edits.
I have questions regarding this.
1. This warning ought to be for all parties involved. Since all parties are equally guilty of editing, re-editing and re-re-re editing to put their point. 2. How can anybody make a change to a page if there is stubborn refusal to listen to reason? This is an encyclopedia page an it ought to be faced on facts. If others are refusing to have a logical argument, then how do you resolve this situation? For sure it cannot be the case that the most stubborn person gets to have a say. There ought to be some kind of arbitration to determine whether a point is factual or not.
How can a political party that has just won a democratic election be called far right? Are we saying that the entire country of Brazil is far right because they elected the politician? How can there be political ideologues pushing their political narrative through an encyclopedic website?
If newspaper can be treated as source for defining the political ideology for a party or a politician, then going by CNN and Washingtonpost, Trump is a hitler. Are you going to allow that as well?
Please help me understand how this kind of conflict is resolved.
- @Berzerker king: The template I left on your talk page explained that you might be banned if you continue to WP:EDITWAR. Please read that policy. In response to your other queries:
"This warning ought to be for all parties involved"
You are the user repeatedly removing WP:CITED content without WP:CONSENSUS"How can anybody make a change to a page if there is stubborn refusal to listen to reason?"
You need to discuss this on the article talk page. So far, you've removed the same content without any consensus on five separate occasions. You need to quote sources, and not simply give your own opinions."How can a political party that has just won a democratic election be called far right?"
We restate what is printed in WP:RELIABLE third-party sources."Are we saying that the entire country of Brazil is far right because they elected the politician?"
Obviously not."If newspaper can be treated as source for defining the political ideology for a party or a politician, then going by CNN and Washingtonpost, Trump is a hitler."
Newspapers are obviously perfectly legitimate sources for articles on current events. Besides a YouTube video, you have so far failed to a provide a single reference in support of your views. CNN and WP do not allege that "Trump is Hitler". Endymion.12 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there :)
You were right to question and revert my edits to this page, they were based on personal experience.
However, the claims I edited do not appear to be based on the sources currently referenced. It therefore still seems appropriate to remove or weaken them as I did.
Thoughts?
--Liam McM 23:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Steve King
Whoa you just took our interaction on the Steve King talk page to a whole new level. I thought we were trying to work out a disagreement? Was I mistaken? R2 (bleep) 01:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Endymion.12. 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)
I'm not a sock!
Hi Endymion! I've noticed you opened a sockpuppet investigation on me, which made me feel very sad because as you can see I don't have any intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Quite the opposite, I've been expanding and improving articles, fixing typos and adding sources.
But anyway, as you may know, having multiple accounts is allowed for legitimate uses and for your information, I used to be an active editor on the Portuguese Wikipedia some 10 years ago however age is catching up on me and unfortunately I don't remember the ID/password for that account, so that's why I'm familiar with the guidelines and policies.
Happy editing! -- ElohimSitri (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings
First you move my post now your highlighting your statements in green to make it seem like your comments are above all in the discussion. Not only that you're leaving snarky comments, this wont help your case in adhering to wp:civility Magherbin (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Magherbin: Thank you for your note. On English Wikipedia talk pages,
we use this formatting for quotations
. For example, see WP:TQ. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)