User talk:StephenMacky1/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wikipedia and copyright

Control copyright icon Hello StephenMacky1! Your additions to 2011 Macedonian protests have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Femke (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dren (mountain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livada. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi StephenMacky1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Darwinek (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to November 30‎ that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for letting me know. I'll let the user know, to ensure that they're up to date. Best regards. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Macedonian nationalism - Reverts

Hello, recently you've reverted my edit on Macedonian nationalism - can you actually explain what your thoughts here were? You accused me of 3 separate things at once.

POV - I indeed stressed who said what and didn't just present it as indisputable facts, so I don't see how I did attribute the points of view to reliable people

OR - Does this imply that I'm citing my own work? That'd mean I wrote it in 2005 and now I'm coming to Wikipedia 17 years later to use it as a source. No, I'm not the author of the source.

UNDUE - Here I don't understand that one. The article Macedonian nationalism is about indeed, Macedonian nationalism and signs of it that appeared. And the source I use does discuss the 19th century observations of Macedonian separate and/or regional identity. Brat Forelli (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for reaching out.
1. Your entry is incompatible with NPOV and contradicts with the rest of the information in the article. I saw that you attributed some statements, but not all statements were attributed and some were in wiki voice, as if they were indisputable facts, but that's not the case if you read the rest of the article. In your latest entry, you attributed some more statements again, but some still do not align with NPOV.
2. No, it does not refer to that. OR in this case refers to reaching conclusions which are not explicitly stated by a source. Ex. the statements about Slaveykov and Pulevski qualify as this.
3. It refers to the weight that we give to certain views. It is undue to give a lot of weight to a minority view because it creates a false equivalency between it and mainstream views. You have included much information from an author whose view doesn't appear to be mainstream.
Some of the information you included is already part of the article too (the parts about Slaveykov and Pulevski), so it is duplicate, but framed in the author's words. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Foreign relations of North Macedonia

Hey, I removed those sections at Foreign relations of North Macedonia as they didn't contain anything but info that is already found in the "List of countries"-section (info on day of establishment of diplomatic relations). Semsûrî (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the clarification. Next time you should clarify it in your edit summary as well, especially when removing sourced content. You can remove them then. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you at least read it before reverting it?

If not, you can still read it by viewing the diffs if you want. I mean the evidence as to why Islam is the truth. Specifically on the Pascal's Wager talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pascal%27s_wager&oldid=1130504903#False_Dichotomy).

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Anon, perhaps you should refer to your own verse, Al-Baqara 256. If you know it to be "true", then you don't need to prove that it is "true". Thus, there's no need for you to write whole essays here. Besides I don't think you'll find any new believers and converts for your religion here, it's not the place for it. I think that you should get rid of the "us-vs-them" mentality and spend your time more wisely. Happy new year. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not us vs them. I'm just spreading the information. Like you referenced, there's no compulsion in religion and I don't intend to force anyone to do anything. I wanted to show that Islam points to charity as being a positive for many reasons and how it is possible to know which religion is the correct one when there are so many. Basically because there are three outliers in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I posted that stuff as counterpoints to the posts I was replying to. Also, thank you for your courteous reply and I hope you have a good year as well.
2600:1010:B178:D5EB:3507:FC04:C6F4:754A (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for it though. Talk pages are for discussions related to improving the article, not debates (see WP:TALK). That's the reason why your comments were reverted. If you wanna discuss these things, you can always do so on another platform. Anyway you're welcome to create an account here so that your IP is not visible. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I have an account, two actually, but it feels like a hassle to log in and I'm a chicken. As for wp talk... if you like cats I guess that reason is good enough for me.
2600:1010:B178:D5EB:3507:FC04:C6F4:754A (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
You should really check WP:SOCK and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY especially if you don't want to get into trouble over this. As long as you aren't deceiving others or being disruptive when you are editing while logged out (as an IP), I think you should be good. I'm just letting you know so that you don't end up into trouble later on. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. I retired one of the accounts (I think) because I was changing the name. But I still feel some aversion for some reason to logging in. No intention to deceive or anything.
2600:1010:B178:D5EB:3507:FC04:C6F4:754A (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Stefan Dedov is an excllent page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Stefan nema takvi bukvi vo Angliska wikipedia

Koa cita bilo koj stranec ne razbira sto cita. Prasuvaat zosto vakvi cudni bukvi sto ne postojat stavaat. Mislat deka sme glupi i zaostanati deka ne znaeme Angliski. Ne go prepravaj so tie hrvatski bukvi na Angliska wikipedia tekstot. Starbakgalaktika (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. They won't understand the other spelling either. While it is the English Wikipedia, it does allow romanization (see MOS:ROMANIZATION). There are exceptions, of course, especially if the non-romanized name is present in the majority of the English-language reliable sources. So I'd recommend you to self-revert all of your undiscussed moves of articles, since I don't see it as being inconsistent with MOS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

“Prophecies of Alexander the Great”

Hi, StephenMacky1. Would you read the article in Bulgarian here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. The additional sources cleared up the matter. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Horace Lunt

You inappropriately changed the meaning -- before it was Macedonist ideology which was considered to contain myths, while after your edit, it's the Macedonian language which is a myth. AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's more accurate. The previous version was not exactly supported by the source. Clarke's criticism about historiography was directed at the Skopje scholars, not Lunt. This line pretty much sums up his criticism: On the other hand, the second contemporary Macedonian literary language was created in the full light of our day. Yet this too is obscured by a growing Macedonian Myth. To it Horace Lunt has contributed his share and set the pace for subsequent American linguistics. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the Macedonian language itself is not a myth, but rather the fact that it was in some respects a conscious creation is one of the things which is obscured by myths of Macedonist ideology. Therefore the state of the article as you left it is wrong. AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
OK. Which Macedonist myths prominent in the Macedonian historiography did Lunt espouse for which he got criticized? You can quote from the source if you think he got criticized for that. StephenMacky1 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
His work in publicizing the official Yugoslav government-endorsed (and in part Yugoslav government-created) official Macedonian Slavic literary language to English speakers implicitly favored the Yugoslav government's preferred nationalist narrative over competing nationalist narratives. See my past comment at Talk:Horace Lunt. AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. Which Macedonist myths did he espouse for which he was criticized? Also Clarke literally starts off the article with "It is my purpose here to describe how the myth of a Macedonian literary language got started". Either way, the wording is currently not in line with NPOV. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Something seems odd

Something's peculiar, notwithstanding this SPI investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK/Archive (see June 23 entry).

Edits English Wikipedia only[1]. Language user boxes are inconsistent with their self-identification.

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is odd indeed, but there is no coincidence here. There was coordination to create a POV fork article. NormalguyfromUK did not coincidentally find out about the article (which was actually still a draft before). StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
THier refusal to do anything about BSfP is mind boggling. it's the most obvious bit of sock puppetry ever. Back in July the new NGfUK sock Gokurose added a random file (the one ucrrently illustrating the nonsense Albanian invasion of 1949 page) to wikimedia xommons . Apparently BSfP found that file in under 5 minutes and added it the draft. What a coincidence!

On wikimedia commons GokuRose uploaded this file at 17.11 on 7 July *https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Collage_from_the_1949_Anglo_American_invasion_of_Communist_Albania.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GokuRose Only five minutes later At 17.16 on 7 July Based.shqiptar.frompirok added the file to their current recreation of NormalguyfromUK's repeated attempted page move at 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.216.213 (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Drag queen sexual abuse cases

Hello StephenMacky1. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Drag queen sexual abuse cases, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No evidence of block evasion provided or found. Thank you. BangJan1999 20:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. My bad. I misunderstood G5. Thought that it applies for blocked editors in general. Either way, it still meets the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly WP:G3. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

False claim on disrupting Nietzshe article

I edited for Pro-German, Anti-Polish bias and language. Citations from antisemitic, pro-German Government funded research used for propaganda purposes should be described as such bias in order to not influence the reader but to educate them. Citations and wording are biased interpretations of Nietzsche despite his own words and actions presenting clear desire to disconnect from his Germanized identity should educate the reader, not influence them.

How is this "distrupting" the article? It is removing obvious bias. I added citations as the original were not even relevant to the points being made. 2A00:F41:48B4:2642:3D97:825E:2564:EFA1 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the sources of an article, head over to WP:RSN. By the way, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources. Editors are forbidden from analyzing primary sources. After being reverted, the onus is on you to try to obtain consensus for the material that you want to restore. Pro-tip: If you want to try to address a perceived issue, at least try to do so constructively. I don't see how your edit is trying to educate the reader by inserting original research and inappropriate labels. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

False claim on disrupting Nietzshe article

I edited for Pro-German, Anti-Polish bias and language. Citations from antisemitic, pro-German Government funded research used for propaganda purposes should be described as such bias in order to not influence the reader but to educate them. Citations and wording are biased interpretations of Nietzsche despite his own words and actions presenting clear desire to disconnect from his Germanized identity should educate the reader, not influence them.

How is this "distrupting" the article? It is removing obvious bias. I added citations as the original were not even relevant to the points being made. 2A00:F41:48B4:2642:3D97:825E:2564:EFA1 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the sources of an article, head over to WP:RSN. By the way, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources. Editors are forbidden from analyzing primary sources. After being reverted, the onus is on you to try to obtain consensus for the material that you want to restore. Pro-tip: If you want to try to address a perceived issue, at least try to do so constructively. I don't see how your edit is trying to educate the reader by inserting original research and inappropriate labels. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Message

Hi. I wanted to know how to acess your sandbox? I’m new to editing and i also wanted to know how to add links to new informations if it’s possible. Thank you Nutshell875 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Here's a tutorial - Help:Sandbox tutorial. For more information, you can see Help:My sandbox. To be honest, I haven't used the sandbox, so I can't tell you much about it. As for links, you can use square brackets. See Help:Link. There are different types of links though, so you might need to be a bit more specific here. But anyway, if you have any additional questions, you can ask. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Vergina Sun

Information icon Hello, I'm Super Dromaeosaurus. An edit that you recently made to Vergina Sun seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. It wasn't a test edit. Your edits did address some of my concerns though. However there's still room for improvement here. The part about houses in Kruševo having star patterns reportedly resembling the Vergina Sun should be attributed to Tom J. Winnifrith. The claims about ancient Macedonian heritage and Alexander might be unnecessary though and I don't see their relevance to the article, which focuses on the symbol. Perhaps it's better to move the fringe views to Aromanian nationalism. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I sent the automated warning out of laziness. I'm okay with atributting the claim to Winnifrith. Regarding the Ancient Macedonians claim I think it's fairly related and it's anyways short info so it does not violate WP:DUE but I can also remove it, it's just a shame that the information on the Aromanians will be pretty short then. I did think of mentioning this info on the Aromanian nationalism article before, I will probably do it in the future. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
What do you think of this version [2]? I shortened the sentence about the claims on Ancient Macedonians as I think it's relevant to mention it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem and thanks. One more thing though, the symbol mentioned by Keith Brown in Cowan's source is actually a rival/alternative symbol to the Vergina Sun, since it contains only eight rays and not sixteen rays. So, this should be made clear in the article too. Apart from that, I have no other concerns. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Currently the article already says "An eight-pointed Vergina Sun star". I can only think of rewriting it to "An eight-pointed version of the Vergina Sun". Do you have any other wording in mind? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nope. That sounds good. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you for the cooperation. Have a happy editing. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Macedonian Nationality

The nationality of the citizens of North Macedonia is Macedonian. They are Macedonians as defined by any official document. Please see: I. United Nations Treaty Collection - No. 55707 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/55707/Part/I-55707-0800000280544ac1.pdf link to Greek MFA: https://www.mfa.gr/images/docs/eidikathemata/agreement.pdf Link to Macedonian MFA: https://vlada.mk/sites/default/files/dokumenti/spogodba-en.pdf ARTICLE 1 3. Pursuant to those negotiations the following have been mutually accepted and agreed: a) The official name of the Second Party shall be the “Republic of North Macedonia”, which shall be the constitutional name of the Second Party and shall be used erga omnes, as provided for in this Agreement. The short name of the Second Party shall be “North Macedonia”. b) The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents. c) The official language of the Second Party shall be the “Macedonian language”, as recognised by the Third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, held in Athens in 1977, and described in Article 7(3) and (4) of this Agreement. d) The terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” have the meaning given under Article 7 of this Agreement. II. The referred name, as well, of the country is “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” in relation to ARTICLE 7: 1. The Parties acknowledge that their respective understanding of the terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” refers to a different historical context and cultural heritage. 2. When reference is made to the First Party, these terms denote not only the area and people of the northern region of the First Party, but also their attributes, as well as the Hellenic civilization, history, culture, and heritage of that region from antiquity to present day. 3. When reference is made to the Second Party, these terms denote its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those referred to under Article 7(2). 4. The Second Party notes that its official language, the Macedonian language, is within the group of South Slavic languages. The Parties note that the official language and other attributes of the Second Party are not related to the ancient Hellenic civilization, history, culture and heritage of the northern region of the First Party. So please use them as stated in official documents and treaties. 89.205.58.32 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't actually follow the Prespa agreement or any official documents. It follows MOS:MAC, as well as other relevant policies and guidelines, although MOS:MAC shouldn't override them. Like I've said, there was consensus about the terminology and title on North Macedonian passport's talk page. If you want to get a new consensus, you can try getting it on the talk page there, but good luck with that. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recent reversion of my edit to the Einstein article.

Hello, I am Polar Opposite. In the edit summary of your reversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&diff=prev&oldid=1193567874) of my edit, you wrote: 'It's clearly just "Einstein" in the source. If you want to add new content, provide some sources too.' I see what you mean, but I think that my edit was merely a copy edit, not the addition of new content. The text as I found it read,

'"Einstein's intellectual achievements and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with "genius".',

which has the following problems:

  1. Originality is was an aspect of Einstein's achievements, not something additional to them, and so "and originality" seems wrong here. The phrase, "especially their originality" would be acceptable. But if his work had not been original, then his achievements would not have been great enough to result in his name sometimes being used to denote "genius", would they? So the simplest thing was to just to shorten it to "Einsten's intellectual achievements", because that was *all* that made "an Einstein" mean "a genius" (in informal writing - in formal writing, "an Einstein" means someone with the name "Einstein", especially a relative of Albert Einstein and call this Point One A, if you like, this also should be made clear).
  2. You can say, in informal writing, "He's an Einstein", or "He's no Einstein", or "He's the Einstein", but not, "this is a work of Einstein", or "he is composer of Einstein". The text as I found it suggests that you could say all of those.
  3. BTW, I just noticed that "the word Einstein" should probably be "the name, Einstein" or perhaps just "Einstein". It is still his name, still capitalized, and still refers to him, albeit figuratively, and, of course, can only be used this way in informal writing.

None of this is new content, just correction of the English and/or style. Polar Apposite (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Curie

What is your problem the discusion is notoriously blocked because of your goddamn belief that is Simple incorrect I edited the Article so it would be accurate to HISTORY What all of you are doing is Simple disrespect for her, who always pointed out that she was polish, not french 11likelive (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Operation Valuable

You might want to look at Operation Valuable again. NgfUK is back restoring all his rubbish and making adding ridiculous claims and captions. 37.245.46.231 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent WP:AN/3RR report

Hello Stephen. Thanks for taking the time to make your recent report in WP:ANEW. I would like to bring to your attention a discussion I had with the administrator who judged your report (here). You may use it for future reference. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

UFOlogy as a scientific study

Although there are many quacks calling themselves Ufologists, there are many people who use the Scientific Method to study this phenomenon.

The Air Force Project Blue Book concluded that there probably were no extra terrestrial vehicles. However, Astronomer J. Allen Hynek, formerly a UFO skeptic, realized that there were real anomalies in the skies. After his tenure on the Robertson panel, he founded the Center for UFO Studies which does indeed use the Scientific Method. There are other organizations that use Science but it is still a soft Science.

"In 1953, Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which concluded that there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, and that a public relations campaign should be undertaken to debunk the subject and reduce public interest. Hynek would later lament that the Robertson Panel had helped make UFOs a disreputable field of study."

Among other countries, the French Government studies have concluded that they cannot rule out extra terrestrial visitors.

To date, what causes unidentified anomalous phenomenon actual is inconclusive but it is being studied Scientifically. Much of Science is still inconclusive.

I understood why you considered my original addition off topic. That is why I thought replacing Dowsing for UFO would be legit because Dowsing is also a pseudoscience. I was attempting compromise. Claiming UFOLOGY to be a pseudoscience is an opinion in light of the above facts.

I am a writer myself and I hate being edited but sometimes it is for the better. Hyp3rcrav3 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Take it up to ufology's talk page. The sources on the cryptozoology article explicitly mention ufology and compare it with cryptozoology. You'll need reliable sources to make your case though. Mentioning dowsing when the sources do not is original research. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StephenMacky1/Archive_1&oldid=1213740738"