User talk:Trlovejoy/Archives/2024

Protestant Bible reverts

Hello, I’ve responded to your bulk revert of my edits at Protestant Bible. Thank you in advance for discussing our respective concerns. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: seems to be settled, unless you actually had some reason to oppose all of my edits to that page without exception. Otherwise I would ask that you please take more care when reverting, and not undo work that isn’t actually objectionable. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, if you read the newspaper article it has multiple quotes by Peter Garrett when Enviromnental Minister.

It is undisputed fact that Peter Garrett authorised the clearing of critical habitat surrounding Jandakot Airport. This happened History Reawakens (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My revert did not argue the information you posted, rather that you did not provide proper citation for the information. Please review the guidelines for citations and reliable sources. Thanks! TRL (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may ask: if it was merely a formatting issue as you imply, why not simply correct the improperly formatted citation they provided? Why punish inexperienced editors just for not knowing the proper syntax on their very first edit? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not a punishment in any way. It is an attempt to prevent incorrect information from being posted. First and foremost source was not reliable, and in addition, the format was incorrect. TRL (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixing broken Tara Regio redirect on List of Geological Features of Europa

Hey,

I'm not sure what I'm doing, but the Tara Regio link on this page - List of geological features on Europa - Wikipedia - redirects back to the same page, the link makes it look like it should take you to the page for Tara Regio, which doesn't exist.

I noticed you rolledback my edit, so I was wondering if you'd be able to fix the issue for me? I'm not entirely sure how to, I tried looking up a guide to just delete the Tara Regio page, but I can't find the 'Move' button at the top of the page, as spoken about here - Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Deleting - Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance! SenShark (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that it is odd that the page redirected to a location where the page was referenced. In this case, I've proposed deletion of the page - as it does not seem to ever have contained content on the topic of Tara Regio.

I made the rollback, based on the deletion/removal of content. Thanks for the note here. TRL (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah perfect! Thank you :3 SenShark (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Jerome Witkin Entry

You also took out some important descriptive elements that were not evaluative, but analytical.

Edit revert

Hello, and thank you for reaching out. Regarding my last edit to List of political disinformation website campaigns, the explanation is in the edit summary. The content was moved to a new page (List of political disinformation website campaigns in Russia) in order to keep the size of the original page more manageable. TotalVibe945 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Berkeley

Hey, mate, super sorry! Just wanted to space out the paragraphs. I'll resist including bad refs in the future. 31.126.188.90 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - no worries. Reliable sources are important to keep accuracy of information. TRL (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Tealyra

Hello, Trlovejoy,

You tagged this page for deletion THE MINUTE it was created. Please do not do this. The guide is that newly created articles should not be tagged for deletion for at least an hour after the editor has stopped editing them. Please do not pounce like this on content creators. It's rude and it doesn't give them time to fix problems with articles. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think it was the minute - but I'll look a bit closer in the future. I recall that the article was blatant advert.

Also, the User talk:Rideron page shows a history of issues with this page topic and creation - going back to 2019.

Thanks for the note - and the move of the page to draft - hopefully the article can be improved for main space. TRL (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

existing source citations

how does when cite a source that is already cited when updating for clarity from existing cited source? Stevetotheoh (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Linux Revert.

Hello, just a few hours ago, I made this [1] edit to Linux

I Changed "Open source" To "Free Source", This is the proper term. (In hindsight i should have made "Free Source" "Free Software".)

However, You reverted this edit.

As stated under the GPLv2 License, That Linux is Licensed under, "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." GPLv2 Is not a Open-Source License. It is a Free License. The creator of the GNU General Public License, And founder of the GNU Project, Richard Stallman, Has explicitly stated that the GNU General Public License Is a Free License. Not A Open Source one. He very much dislikes the term "Open-Source"

In conclusion, your revert is Unfounded. Please change it back. (Although change "Free Source" to "Free Software".)

Worm Regards, Jacob

March 2024

Hello, I'm NatGertler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Home (2015 film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - system generated error. TRL (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

British Columbia Mountaineering Club

Hello, Trlovejoy, You tagged this page for deletion THE MINUTE it was created. Please do not do this. The guide is that newly created articles should not be tagged for deletion for at least an hour after the editor has stopped editing them. Please do not pounce like this on content creators. It's rude and it doesn't give them time to fix problems with articles. in your deletion, you cited advertising as the reason for deletion. I added the history of teh club and its activities. nowhere was there any solicitation or attempt to sell any good or service. The club itself is a social club, that is a community of like minded folks who choose to recreate together. PineIsle001 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the page wasn't tagged for deletion. Rather your edits that were clearly advertisements and promotional material, without citations - were reverted. TRL (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

no, the comments are very clearly not advertisements or promotional material. The additions are a description of the club's activities... The text was written by club members,describing the activities of the club... of which I am a member. There is no advertisement, no solicitation and absolutely no inducement to sell any product or service. You're totally, and completely, incorrect in your assessment that the additions are, in any way, an advertisement or are promotional. Rather, they accurately and fairly describe the club, it's activities, and its history. 2001:569:7A09:2300:B3A3:CA8C:FB9D:35F2 (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

you are welcome to use reliable sources to post information about the club. however, i'd encourage you to follow neutral point of view, and look at the fact that the page should not be used as the organization's account to introduce people to your efforts, activities, etc. launch a webpage for those activities. this topic specific discussion is also more appropriate for Talk:British Columbia Mountaineering Club. Thanks for your notes, have a great day.

I'd also encourage you to create an account, rather than posting anonymously. TRL (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

So, could you explain what about this of mine did 'not appear constructive' to you, as User:Polygnotus has already asked you to do on my talk page? I asked for a citation, and asking for citations is completely standard, appropriate and constructive behaviour on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason for you to revert it and to put a standard vandal-fighting notice on my talk page. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. The rollback was attributed to the fact that your note within the article did not appear constructive to the hieroglyph article. Hope this was helpful - and apologies if it was a surprise. TRL (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What about calling into question an unsourced claim does not appear constructive to you? It's what the "fact" tag he added is for -- questioning an uncited claim that may not be true. It was not perfectly formatted; {{fact|reason=-Even the beer? The whole point here is that they have the same sign, but *different* meanings supplied by different determinatives.}} would've been a more perfect format, but your use of a vandalism template was inappropriate for an edit that was in no way can be contrued as WP:VANDALISM. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, my using a supposedly 'imperfect format' still wouldn't be a reason for anyone to revert my edit, it would be a reason for them to improve the format. The article is better off with a constructive edit with an imperfect format than without a constructive edit altogether, and nobody is obliged to make absolutely perfect edits, nor is that even possible. (Personally, I am not convinced that the format is imperfect either, because I think that such a long explanation being made visible to readers would harm readability.) As for Trlovejoy's claim that such a hidden note wasn't constructive - on the contrary, leaving a message to other editors explaining why I am asking for a citation is more constructive and helpful than just asking for a citation. Trlovejoy shouldn't assume that something an IP does is 'not constructive' just because he doesn't immediately understand it.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Invisible_comments. Polygnotus (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop vandalism patrolling

Given your vandalistic reversion on Home and the reversion mentioned right above this, as well as your baseless vandalism warning and removal of a seemingly quite appropriate edit on Urban legends about drugs, there seems to be something wrong with how you are going about all this, and your methods are causing damage. Please step away from this effort until you can get some handle on what you are doing wrong and how to avoid it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Nat, thank you for the insight into your perspective. I do not appreciate the indication that I do not have a handle. I'll look to be a bit more diligent with the review - this specific case was a confluence of an article with a suitable nature for the additions made. I'm sure you can understand the confusion. As Wikipedia keeps the history - there is an easy revert back to the addition, as you completed. All the best. TRL (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I for one don't 'understand the confusion' and your explanation above. It seems that you just randomly revert edits by IPs just because they are edits by IPs, without seriously looking at the nature of the edits. Of course your reverts can be reverted, but that is not a justification - so can any other harmful edit. These actions are harmful not just because they remove constructive edits that improve the encyclopedia, but also because baselessly accusing people of vandalism and undoing their edits for no reason is unfair, frustrating and insulting to them and discourages them from editing.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In short: your false positive rate is too high, even keeping in mind reversions of reversions are easy. Be more careful, please. Remsense诉 10:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Rollback edit

Hi, please self revert your highly inappropriate use of rollback as you used it on Australian Grand Prix. See WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello - the content removal you performed was inappropriate. I made the mistake of not closing the merge discussion and establishing the consensus before the merger movements. For that I am sorry! I have corrected my mistake.

If you are concerned about the merge of the content - it would be great to discuss in the talk page prior to content removal. All the best!~~ TRL (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Which of the 5 acceptable reasons for use of rollback apply? None. I have reverted for you since your edit here made it clear you would not do so yourself. Further, I am interested how you came to the conclusion that there was consensus to merge? None of the issues I or Falcadore raised were addressed. A7V2 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason was #5, I went to the talk page and closed the merger discussion - as I should have done to begin with.

The merge discussion was closed - 3 to 2 in support for merge.

Please take your concerns to the talk page or tag the unsourced content of your concern. I merged the original content.

All the best!~~ TRL (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that for reason number 5, the edits need to be "widespread", which IT clearly was not (one edit), and you failed to explain your reasoning until AFTER I raised it with you. You should consider handing in your rollback rights! A7V2 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Song for the Geese

Hi, Got your message. I didn't mean to leave that page blank. I am fairly new at editing, I made a new album page for the release Song for the Geese and when I tried to move it from my Sandbox I ran into the redirect. That was new to me, not sure what to do. I was trying to figure out what to do next when you left your message. CoralRad (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I should say no worries! Take a look at the actions you are performing (what is the outcome? a new page? a merged page? edits on existing page?) and the comments needed to clarify what you are working to execute. With those two things you should be able to edit successfully. Welcome to being an editor! All the best on your journey! TRL (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Trlovejoy, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Miniapolis 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I just declined five A7 tags by Trlovejoy. None of the articles they tagged is new. I don't think this user is ready for NPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer

In light of Bbb23's comment, I removed your one-month trial NPP flag. Seven WP:A7 nominations for articles which are not new indicate the need for a better understanding of CSD, and it seemed odd to archive that thread so quickly. Miniapolis 13:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I thought it was odd, too. Looks like you forgot to remove the NPP right.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Just did . Miniapolis 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis request your insight on my comment below.

I am always disappointed for a community built on the WP:AGF principles, and how quickly they are abandoned. This talk dialogue is helpful in correcting behaviors others have deemed inappropriate. Quick removal of NPP isn't helpful in the context of larger contributions to improvements of this community. I'd request you reconsider your determination. TRL (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I just found what you wanted me to comment on, which frankly reads like it was written with WP:AI. I assumed good faith with the NPP trial, but you don't seem to understand WP:CSD well enough yet. User rights are not entitlements; they're given if their use will create less work for other editors, not more. You've received advice from me and Bbb23, and I'm done here as well. Miniapolis 19:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - really helpful to know that my text does not read as human generated. I'll incorporate that into my contributions in the future. All the best. TRL (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Miniapolis and @Bbb23 for the feedback. It would appear the definition of "new" is created recently? The articles I tagged were in the new pages feed for review. I had asked for the NPP in an effort to contribute to the May backlog drive. I am attempting to assist in that process.

@Bbb23, would you kindly clarify what your rejection of the A7 nomination was based on? "new" article? I tagged articles that I believed did not claim significance or importance. I appreciate your help.

Sorry if I startled anyone for the archival, this was meant in alignment with archival instructions. "Removal of content from your user talk page, such as warnings posted by others, is considered evidence you have seen the content; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic." TRL (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not here to mentor you. If you have a question about a specific A7 decline, I will try to answer it. I will say that in my experience patrolling CSD, it is far more common for newly-created pages to be tagged than old ones, and if I were a new reviewer, I would go for the easiest ones first. As for archiving, it is best to set up automated archiving. Your basis for archival is not ideal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello - I'm sorry I was not intending to ask you for mentorship, rather to provide justification and clarification for your five A7 declines. To be specific please provide your clarification for: Noe Baba, Henry G. Roe, and Alyssa Baron.

As for archiving, it might be best to reivew the instructions - or the community to update their practices standards. Thanks for your help! TRL (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, so looking at Noe Baba, the subject may not meet notability guidelines, but there are plenty of claims of significance that make an A7 inappropriate. As for archiving, there is nothing wrong with the instructions. Your quotation just means that the removal of warnings means you have read the warning, not that such a warning should be archived. And in this instance, it wasn't just a warning; I pinged another administrator, and rather than giving them a chance to respond, you archived my post about 30 minutes after I made it. Doesn't look good. If you have any more questions about archiving or NPP, please ask elsewhere. I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

(←) Trlovejoy, A7 can be confusing and is often conflated with notability. It hinges on a claim of significance, which is different from notability; I think of the tag as appropriate for, say, an article about one's garage band or something similar. Although I'm a coordinator with the Guild of Copy Editors (which also has a backlog-reduction drive going on now), I have mixed feelings about these contests; they make it easy to focus on chasing barnstars and what-not, forgetting that the object of the game is – or should be – improving the encyclopedia. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 17:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I tend to agree with the somewhat contradictory effect of gamefying contributions. Comments from Bbb23 above regarding how time is spent, lends to the quick reaction force that resulted (in this case) in the removal of permissions to contribute to the community. What is the best path to return to NPP? TRL (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)