User talk:Siuenti

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Rivalry (album), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Rivalry (album) was changed by Siuenti (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.962188 on 2012-06-18T15:51:26+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lottie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lotte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Siuenti. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! -- Trevj (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Siuenti, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! -- Trevj (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great start on Kindoki. I've wanted to create it for a while, there's lots of material out there. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kindoki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Possession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct. I read in Cosmos that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth. However, I cannot be 100% sure. Greengreengreenred 23:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, circumference != size, so it's certainly possible that Aristarchus did. I don't well know my ancient Greek scientific history; never mind my previous statement. Greengreengreenred 23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese badger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 23:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you commented on Thigh gap's RfD, you may be interested in the new article Thigh gap and its associated DYK. Thank you.--Launchballer 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inspirer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inspiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 11:14, Monday, November 18, 2024 (UTC)

I am not good at doing barnstars and stuff, I should give you one, but I edit everything longhand in plaintext (hence so many mistakes!) But I wanted to give you a sincere thank-you for all the help you do at RfD with the Asian languages. It makes a huge difference, and I for one appreciate it.

You can have an old fashioned barnstar:

   ^
 / Ũ \
<-- -->
 \ * /
  \ /
   V
   

Please add it to your barnstars. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honoured, thank you. Siuenti (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this says [1] it says its new here , and I sourced this article [2], ???--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa, Siuenti The SL government set up the 117 helpline back in June [3]. Marie Stopes (not the government) seem to have set up another helpline in November. The edit in its current form is inaccurate. Robertpedley (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well then, let me alter it again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. to Suenti Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Siuenti; i undid your change at Country house, because the link you added in a See also section was already in the article, and See also is really for extra wlinks which have not had a natural spot in an article. Hope you see what i mean. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti, yes we know. Please say Support or Oppose at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Further proposal for Lohengrin. Prhartcom (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When is Christmas. Since you had some involvement with the When is Christmas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your opinions about this move discussion? I actually, more or less, agree with your opinion at the RFD discussion, but ... what are your thoughts on the move request? Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siuenti! Thanks for participating in the Cross-Language Editing and Learning Exchange. As you may have noticed, it's a brand new WikiProject, and it needs a certain critical mass of participants to get going. One thing that would help would be to make an announcement about it at an appropriate location on the Korean Wikipedia. Would you be able to do this? A suggested text would be:

Hello, Would you like to improve your English writing while editing Wikipedia? If so, there is a new project that can help you! It is called the [[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Cross-language Editing and Learning Exchange|Cross-language Editing and Learning Exchange]]. It lets you find a fluent English speaker to review articles you write for the English Wikipedia. In return, you help your partner write articles for the Korean Wikipedia.

Can you translate this into Korean and post it? If so, you would really help the project! Many thanks, Tdslk (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What should pregnant women eat. Since you had some involvement with the What should pregnant women eat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When is Christmas?. Since you had some involvement with the When is Christmas? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Aran Islands bibliography page, your edit caused a coauthors without author error (help) and an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strombidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operculum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siuenti

You reverted my addition of Belize to the category Small Island Developing States, I understand why you did this but confusingly Belize is actually part of the SIDS group, you can find out more information here, I've added it back into the category.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Umbra Floreo means In the Shade we Flourish. (Referring to your comment on Belize). Can't see how they managed to mess this up; the person who wrote it definitely isn't Belizean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartOfTheOceans (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of swing bridges. Since you had some involvement with the List of swing bridges redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect कल्की केकलां. Since you had some involvement with the कल्की केकलां redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Public Enemies (2009 film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please read WP:FilmPlot before doing any more of your redundant plot reverts. Thanks Areaseven (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you appear to be inconveniencing readers solely to decrease the work count in that section, correct? Siuenti (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it inconveniencing if there is a Cast section on the film article(s)? - Areaseven (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I mean word count, not work count. It's inconvenient because it forces people like me scroll up and down to figure out who is who, assuming they know there is a cast section at all. Siuenti (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. on behalf of Areaseven -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope nothing bad came out of that, Siuenti, I was on a long Wikibreak so I didn't see it. I would have stook up for you as a long time good faith editor who does nothing that make Wikipedia better. We disagree, sometimes, but always in good faith. I hope the ANI discussion did not tarnish your good name. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siuenti,

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects_from_foreign_languages in which I think you may be interested. Some multilingual regs at RfD were informed of it but I don't think you were. I'd be pleased if you should contribute to that discussion.

Nice to see you back at RfD. I didn't mention you in the litany of multilingual speakers we have at RfD, Hungarian: bocsanat, sorry. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When is Christmas. Since you had some involvement with the When is Christmas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When is Christmas?. Since you had some involvement with the When is Christmas? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siuenti. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Siuenti! I just wanted to drop in and thank you for your edit/redirection to List of Freedom Riders :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Siuenti (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• why FACGO and not FACNOMS? More logical. Assuming others don't revert it in the first place.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea is that instead of having random suffixes you will just be able to add "go" to the existing shortcut to get to the current content. Siuenti (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't know how I managed to do that! I've restored everything. Graham87 12:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Siuenti (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other choices that have not been given due consideration? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it covered more or less. Siuenti (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took all those suggestions/choices and I incorporated them into a new RfC that specifically allows for choices, including keeping things as they are. here. I've included your suggestions, and just about every one I could find. I think it covers every possible choice. It also includes two sentence solutions and one sentence solutions. Thanks for the input. I wouldn't have thought to do it, but your comments made me realize this really needs a fair and open set of choices. Otherwise, we'll say mired in the muck. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talking to myself) I won on Donald Trump. The hat was broken, turns out it's really hard to fix because the lead is broken too. Extensive and often circular discussions result. Eventually a lead emerges which isn't broken and the hatnote is fixed. Victory. Now I wonder if there is consensus to stop or people want try to make it even better, so I make a thread. I appear to learn from that thread that there is consensus to stop, so fine. I know I made a lot of people annoyed during this process but WP:COMPETENCE. Siuenti (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Province" was white and "Prefecture" was blue, or vice versa, so I made them the same. Siuenti (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably makes more sense to make them all blue, then, as unnecessary piping just clutters the source, making it harder to parse when editing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that something people are positive about an opinion they hold, while simultaneously not having the first clue what they are talking about. It also seems to me that when that happens it makes it a little bit more difficult to improve the encyclopedia and/or dictionary Siuenti (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had a final warning yesterday for your continued aggressive squabbling with other contributors over the RfC at Talk:Liancourt Rocks. This [4], together with edits here [5] and at [6], tells me that you are still unwilling to drop the stick. I really don't know what got you riled up like this on that page, but it's become quite obvious that your presence in that discussion has long ceased to be useful. To stop you from poisoning the discussion further, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia. I makes it difficult to improve Wikipedia when people make statements which they are "completely positive" of but for which they provide no evidence, even when I ask them nicely to go look. It's the kind of thing which could indeed get someone a little bit riled up. If Nihonjoe doesn't want to look for evidence, I think I'm entitled to try and find some informed third party input. Siuenti (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While spectactularly failing to find any support whatsoever for a certain person's opinion, I did find something I like. I'm gonna go right ahead and cherry pick it because it's more or less exactly what I was trying to say:

The science of "systematic reviews" that grew from this research is exactly that: a science. It's a series of reproducible methods for searching information, to ensure that your evidence synthesis is as free from bias as your individual experiments. You describe not just what you found, but how you looked, which research databases you used, what search terms you typed, and so on. This apparently obvious manoeuvre has revolutionised the science of medicine.

[7]

Siuenti (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Do you have any opinion as to whether "Any test can be cherry-picked."? Siuenti (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and how would you interpret Wikipedia:Verifiability as applying to this question? Siuenti (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to enter into debates with you about whatever red herring it is you are upset about. My message to you is you need to stay away from the discussion there until you are again able to engage in constructive consensus-seeking rather than picking fights for the sake of picking fights. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that asking for evidence is a way to engage in constructive consensus-seeking? Siuenti (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or that asking for third-party opinions might help to reach a consensus? Siuenti (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how I understand your position. I think if we can find a test that eliminates the problem of cherry-picking it might be worth talking about. Nihonjoe's position is that there can be no such test so it is not worth talking about. When I suggest that Nihonjoe or anyone else might like to find a source which verifies what he says, you say I am picking fights for the sake of picking fights. You don't think I might be engaging reluctantly in this fight because if I can get people to think about my idea, I might be able to help wikipedia by eliminating or at least greatly mitigating the problem of cherry-picking in RfCs like that one. Siuenti (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think WP:FAITH has any relevance to how you should interpret my behaviour? Siuenti (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors who like to engage in arguments from authority, this is what a good one looks like:

Yes, all discussions about what we as a community should do should be grounded in verifiable facts. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC) [8][reply]

Please blank Wikipedia:Argument from authority or I will request deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I'm having both deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Competence is not required, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is not required (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Competence is not required during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been on Wikipedia for a while, but I just want to point out that the signature you used at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 6#Barack obama in this edit may fail WP:SIGPROB. I'm just saying this since I recognize your user name, but I would have had no idea that the editor who participated in the aforementioned RFD discussion was you unless I clicked on the link on the signature (which I had to do). In fact, I'd say that if that you want to use that name from here on out, I'd recommend requesting a user name change since it's available. Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm So Sienti (씨유엔티) 16:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) is my current sig Sienti (씨유엔티) 16:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The signature is missing the "u" in your current user name. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistake, sorry, I thought I fixed it Sienti (씨유엔티) 16:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to an example of what I've been doing wrong? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that

Signs that a user may be here to build an encyclopedia include:

Genuine interest and improvement

A genuine interest in improving the encyclopedic content (articles and media). This often involves a wide range of interests, and substantive edits/article writing or other significant activities (e.g., coding, patrolling, or wikignoming). It may also include significant constructive improvements to the processes that are involved in improving content, or mitigating and reducing problems that make a negative contribution to Wikipedia.

Respect for core editing standards

Behaving in accordance with core agreed policies when editing, including policies on content and behavior.

A focus on encyclopedia building

Non-encyclopedia-related contributions are kept to a limited level in comparison with positive and directly constructive contributions to the encyclopedia and/or its editorial processes.

Self-correction and heeding lessons

When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them. The user appears to take editing seriously, and improves their editorial ability and quality of input.

hmm Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, I think might fail "appears to take editing seriously" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pics or it didn't happen, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pics or it didn't happen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Pics or it didn't happen during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to, I will systematically reverse every edit you make if that's how you're going to be. I understand you're unhappy with how you've been treated, or you think someone was unfair to you, or you think you should be allowed to have fun. I cannot emphasize enough that Wikipedia does not care about you. What you're doing now is only making the situation worse. Please stop before the community removes you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pics or it didn't happen kthx. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I'm watching your subpages, too. I'll nominate those for deletion the moment you move them. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok but if your systematic reversals slack off at any time I might think you aren't paying attention, and try to sneak one in under the radar. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game. I draw no joy from this. I don't think this is funny. I am participating in writing an encyclopedia and sadly that requires reverting unhelpful changes. I would be as happy if I was the only editor on Wikipedia and I could simply build and refine without interference. If you think I am doing this because I have animus against you or that I'm bored or that I think this is enjoyable, think again. I do not welcome you editing here on Wikipedia because you've been nothing but a hassle. Please stop being a hassle and try to be constructive for once. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's such a hassle for you to consider the teeniest possibility you might be wrong about certain things. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I considered trying to sneak this under the radar, but I know you are too vigilant to let that happen. @Chris troutman: Wikipedia:Infallible Siuenti (씨유엔티) 10:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, I think the reason you don't welcome my editing, is that you think you are infallible, and you don't like it when people try to tell you that you aren't. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Mr Infallible: Wikipedia:Diffs are for Stiffs Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 18:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that Wikipedia decisions should mostly be based on evidence, policies, precedents and/or logic, rather than things like arguments from the personal authority of Wikipedians, and false statements of fact. Some people appear to disagree, so I guess I might be wrong per Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong#Are you wrong? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another one we see around here a lot is proof by assertion. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No we have proof by WP:RS. Wikipedia is entirely unreliable, whatever idiiots quote in the news. At the bottom of most articles are reliable, secondary sources, WP:RS. If you don't believe Wikipedia (and you shouldn't) then check the RS. It's only two clicks away. Don't trust Sienti, don't trust me, it is there at the bottom of the article. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaeida that anyone can edit'. Don't trust it. Nobody told you to. On hard sciences and stuff it is quite good, the mental health articles are deranged, but that is the same as when you get in a mental health hospittal. wonder why I keep my patients when I was kept as a patient, but it is one by one, each edit, makes it a tiny bit better.

Actually Wikipedia only has proof by RS in mainspace. WP:V is only explicitly about that space, per User:Siuenti/Straw man. That means in other spaces people can use their pet fallacies as much as they like, and prevent any movement towards the right answer. @SimonTrew: Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the great mistake of telling someone who brings things to PNT on a constant basis that translation is hard. I said I know some a bit of Hungarian, myy native language is English, I do all right in French but have not a degree in it, but if you want to give me the mathematics I shall translate that as best I can. I notice a lot of things come up from elinruby with a lot of replies to them by lectonar. I suggested that translation washard and suddenly it went quiet. Well, hahimemashite and all that, but J'Accuse, I was told I couldn't speak French. Seemed to be speaking it well enough tonight. Nobodoy employs me as a professional translator, neither am I one. Quite astounding really, it's hard isn't it. It's not the words, but the idioms and making it all doing the let's reverse that bit of grammar here and instead of saying the pot calling the kettle black we'll say "she was as bad as he was" or whatver, it is hard. Very much underappreciated at WP I think. That is why we dwindle in number each year and I am the only Hungarian speaker left, and I ain't good to translate into it, only out of it. And get abused for being able to do that. Well, what's the point. Better get a glass of vodka (English: water; Hungarian: vis or visz: Frennch: Je ne connais) Si Trew (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is why I ask your advice on Japanese, even though I don't think you are a native speaker you said somewhere, but a damned sight better than I am. And better is bether than nothing. That is how we build this encyclopaeidia, isn't it.? Have a great Easter, Hajimemashiet Siuente-san. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "For example are Takeshima/Dokdo or Dokdo/Takeshima possibilities? Siuenti (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)"

No they are not.

1. There is a technical problem with forward slashes in article names, which while not longer a show stopper it is a character best avoided. (see WP:NC-SLASH)
2. it was long ago agreed not to use dual names (see WP:STROKE CITY and the article Stroke city).

-- PBS (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one in particular should look at "the Game" and its "rules" which are to be found on my User Page. The most you can achieve by not playing by the rules is to prevent Wikipedia getting better. Is that a really good use of your time? or do you perhaps just like to play that way? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Humour

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Got one heheh

Wikipedia:Infallible, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Infallible and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Infallible during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make substantial changes to Wikipedia guidelines without discussing them first. This behaviour seriously undermines Wikipedia. "Other stuff exists" is a notorious argument that is not accepted in deletion discussions. This is a long-standing consensus on Wikipedia. If you actually read the whole Wikipedia:Other stuff exists essay, not just the summary which you quoted, you can see that this really is a no-no in deletion discussions. Deletion debates should focus on the nominated article, not other, similar articles. There can be special, legitimate exceptions, but that does not mean that this should be prominently encouraged at the top of the guideline as something that is desirable.—J. M. (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case.

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not mean that this is an actively encouraged practice that should be prominently mentioned at the top of the guideline as something you should generally do. It is only something that might be acceptable in special cases.—J. M. (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we go ask what the folks at WP:OSE think? I'm wondering what those special cases would be Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this topic, it does not matter too much what the special cases are. The point is that they are exceptions to the rule, not something that should be generally, prominently encouraged in a guideline. There is a very big difference between saying "If you do X, it might perhaps be OK", and "Do X!". You have a very strong tendency towards distorted, demagogic arguments in every discussion, in every edit you make. This is the behaviour people are complaining about. You do not seem to have a sense of proportion, due weight, you do not seem to be able to see "the spirit, not the letters of the law".—J. M. (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh is that me? Can you provide a couple of examples of this problem? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like me to me. But it has been said I may have a painful lack of self-awareness. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:@J. M.: Still there? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti, your behaviour needs to stop. Despite multiple warnings and requests to let it go, you have continued creating yet more spurious essays and useless projectspace redirects, making edits to guidelines not backed by consensus, and so on. And your behaviour surrounding these edits (as in edits like [9][10] has become indistinguishable from trolling.

I am blocking you for a period of two weeks. You can be unblocked at any time if and when you are prepared to let go. And by that, I mean: completely walk away from this whole area of projectspace edits, meta-debate and fiddling with guidelines, for a substantial amount of time. Just go and build articles. (And don't even think of continuing your games by manufacturing yet more meta-debate and project-space fuss about this block, its justifications, the interpretation of the above conditions, and so on. I will block you again immediately if you do that.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of useless projectspace redirects would include?

I think WP:Diffs are for Stiffs is funny and not very different from WP:PleaseBiteTheNewbies

I didn't know those edits to guidelines did not have consensus, some of them did

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to move Wikipedia in the general direction of evidence-based decision making, not an easy task. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does "got one" (diff) help the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm try to get someone to stop hounding me and getting legitimate redirects deleted. I need to show that I am more competent on this issue than the hounder to save time at DRV or wherever. Otherwise it will take a while to get these good redirects back. So I was happy :) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not matter how many times I ask for evidence, policies, logic, examples or anything people just ignore me. No fair! Maybe if they responded to me once in a while I wouldn't be so bitter and disgruntled, I might even figure out why I'm wrong, you never can tell. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Diffs are for Stiffs, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Diffs are for Stiffs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Diffs are for Stiffs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I don't think I am actually free to participate in the discussion due to circumstances beyond my control. I would kinda like to get a third party opinion from WP:Comedy as to whether it's funny or not. That would be convincing evidence for me that my sense of humor is not a good match with Wikipedia. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 18:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:Infallible @Johnuniq: says this:

Delete No useful advice. Linking to this page would just be a way of deflecting disagreement in a discussion (I make an assertion; you disagree; I link to WP:Infallible to imply you are wrong and are merely disagreeing because you think you are infallible—not helpful). Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly not what it's for. You make an assertion, I disagree, I ask nicely for evidence, you don't provide any, then I say "come on Johnuniq, you are not infallible, so just in case you are wrong please try to find some evidence for your assertion, and in the meantime don't dismiss the possibility that my assertion might be correct" (spoiler alert: which it invariably is LOL). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, I think if you knew better, you would do better, in terms of making evidence-based decisions. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would my dear friend, but as Eubot and User:Neelix did not make evidence-based decisions, I am trying to mop up their shit. I still have not been told where the ANI discussion on my behaviour is. I pointed fingers there, absolutely, because people were pointing fingers at me, that is what you do in court. I have defended myself four times in court, won once, lost three. ANI is not some kind of what is the word I am looking for, court made up on the day. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo court is what I was thinking of. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And actually User:Siuenti I called on you because I did not know better and you are the expert on matters east asian. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself +and ask for explanations from the other party+; do not start an edit war.
• Q13. The other editor refuses to discuss. What should I do?

Oh, I thought this was addressed to me. Is it a third party you have a problem with.

Stay calm. Wikpedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. Collect your thoughts, do not go into a battle.

There is WP:3RR, that is when an edit war starts.

Do not edit it back, stay away. Let the other side do it.

Everything on Wikipedia is public. Do not be an idiot like me and use your real name.

To build evidence for your side, check the history of the article, see who is WP:INVOLVED

And, errr.... sign a post. Four tildes like this Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Si Trew: If I wasn't blocked I'd say:

• Delete Okazakikoen- mae Station, any version with - followed by a space is an implausible error. Also delete Okazakikōen- mae Station for the same reason. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:LATINPLEASE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:LATINPLEASE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is a friendly reminder to review an article's history before tagging for speedy deletion and not re-tagging an article where an admin has already declined to speedy delete the article. Doing so might be considered admin shopping. If you believe an article should be deleted, please use the other methods available. On a side note, having multiple bit roles playing named characters is usually sufficient to pass the low bar A7 sets. Whether the subject meets WP:NACTOR is not relevant. Regards SoWhy 08:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yeah I should have checked the history and moved it to draft or prodded it, but actually you could have AGF'd and done the same. I have the feeling my move to draft is going to be reverted so we will be able to have a nice chat about that. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith, which is why I merely reminded you to do so next time. As for the move, of course I reverted it. There is no policy based reason for you - or any editor, including admins - to move articles out of article space without consensus (see WP:DRAFTIFY). I'm quite surprised that you did so despite knowing that and that you will be reverted. You should know better than that. There are proper channels to handle such articles but just moving them to Draft-space without discussion is not one of them. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Samf4u. Thanks for your addition to the Gimli Glider article. A Miracle is defined as an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. Miracle on the Hudson is mentioned in the US Airways Flight 1549 article but I think it is unnecessary in the See also section of Gimli Glider. This is an encyclopedia not a news rag and I believe it should be held to a higher standard. Thanks and good luck. Samf4u (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ack what is this doing here? I didn't notice it until now, discusss edits to Gimli Glider on that page please, or even in your edit summaries. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gimli Glider shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to figure out what the rationale was by getting people to explain on the talk page, kinda worked eventually. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post comments on my talk page, especially those that give the appearance of hounding. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to bite fewer newbies then. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Gliding is about the sport of gliding. Its categories include the Category:Air sports but I guess gliding in an airliner isn't a lot of fun. At the top of the article is a link to the disambiguation page Gliding (disambiguation) which contains a link to List of airline flights that required gliding. The article on Gliding flight also contains this link. JMcC (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk aboug Gliding on that page's talk page for God's sake. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Soneb Issi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soneb Issi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you almost done with your review? LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lieres (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lieres (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siuenti. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Linda Shapiro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't believe that Professor Shapiro meets the basic notability guideline, of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I looked through the top 50 G-Hits for "professor Linda Shapiro" and quickly realized that there are multiple subjects, found no independent reliable sources providing coverage, and got to the point where the three words were each appearing separately in the article instead of together.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Are elephants afraid of mice?. Since you had some involvement with the Are elephants afraid of mice? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect When is Christmas. Since you had some involvement with the When is Christmas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 76.1 FM is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/76.1 FM until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Several other radio frequency articles have also been nominated for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siuenti,

Thank you for creating List of tallest buildings in Bangkok.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page currently has only one reference for a proposed building. Many more are need to verify the heights listed in the charts.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cerebral726}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cerebral726 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]