User talk:Tarl N./Archive 6

...for your recent encouragement and admonishment at the Space Elevator page. I too am a WP retiree, perhaps for reasons that overlap with yours.

A trio of suggestions, for the good of web information integrity, and our own psychological well-being. First, if you see something academically or intellectually egregious, needing attention — which one must say, unfortunately, is near to guaranteed in any extended visit to this information space — then perhaps give it a few editorial minutes, and drop me a line. If at all in the area of WP following its own rules, I can add a "vote" for keeping your edits in place. (I still edit broadly, and anonymously, generally in response to queries from former students, family members, etc.) Second, if you see me editing, when you come on, of course engage me in Talk, but if you are in accord with the WP:VERIFY and WP:OR compliance editing that I still do — please, add an edit or two, truly substantive (sourcing or eliminating nonsense) or less (even copy edits), to add momentum to the pro-content integrity direction. Third, take 95% of that same dedication and passion and give it to something more purely productive.

Otherwise, with regard to that specific article, I largely agree: it is so far gone, and in relation to other articles in its near-network, so poor in quality as a set, that it is not worth repeated back and forth with encamped, self-interested editors. Better to spend time making a real difference, somewhere, than to fight in a system that gives no edge to what is actually compliant / accurate / correct (over local consensus, even if noncompliant / inaccurate / incorrect). Besides beginning a second a career post-60, I now do framing with a Habitat-type organization, and do pro bono coaching and mentoring (where I enjoy the clear productivity, and iron-sharpens-iron nature of these types of service, and that at end of day, no carpentry novice or business beginner can impulsively or otherwise ignorantly cancel an entire block of earlier thoughtful, hard work).

Please feel free to eliminate/redact this after reading. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:14C:F08F:D007:EA22:3406 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I saw you reverted my edit, and I don’t disagree with the reason. I do think, however, that the sentence I edited (and the current version):

“It takes at least 1 billion years from now to deplete liquid water from the Earth from such increase.“

Is not of higher quality. Do you have an alternative in mind that might work better? Or perhaps it could be removed/moved elsewhere.

Thank you! Marchantiophyta (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Answering on OP's talk page, where the discussion started. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you left this message for me.

"Please see WP:REDACT. I reverted your recent changes. The talk page should be a record of the discussion as it was, not as you would have liked it to be. If you need to change comments that someone else has already read, you must mark them in such a way that it's obvious they are changed (as described in the talk page guidelines). Tarl N. (discuss) 05:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)"

It didn't look like the messages I edited that you reverted had been replied to yet, so they actually don't fit the guidelines you linked to as WP: REDACT, where it makes a distinction between comments that have not been responded to yet. Either way, it's new information to me and I wasn't aware of this.

This is what WP: REDACT says: "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely." There is also a discussion of mutual withdrawal of unproductive lines of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) 09:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, there most of the feedback that I have been getting hasn't been about the scholarship and the merits of the information. but about too much information and posts being too long, so it seemed like an appropriate thing to do to shorten some, and there are probably a lot of ways to consolodate and organize the information better, especially as I sought out more information through the discussion.

If you want to have a discussion that doesn't crowd the Columbus talk page. There's a discussion to be had here on how to assess the quality of sources and weigh what sources speak more directly to the historical inquiry. There is also a relevant discussion to be had about "ethnonyms," "exonyms," and "endonyms," which seems to be a point of confusion that you and some others bring up.

It says here you are retired, maybe that is not current? SiciliaOliva (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Replied on editor's on talk page, where the discussion originated. Tarl N. (discuss) 10:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Later note) Since my reply was immediately blanked and the conversation resumed here, the reply I made may be seen at Reply . Tarl N. (discuss) 11:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I read your message. It's sounds like we don't see eye to eye and so our dialogue will likely not prove productive.

I notice all of the WP articles that you cited, to tell me my form of engagement was incorrect, all say that they are not official guidelines of Wikipedia, but I acknowledge, it's clear that some people do appear bothered on the page by the amount of text and information I posted.

I invoke this which is an official guideline: "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating."

That's here on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout

That page says "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline."

If you are going to participate in the thread that I started on the Columbus talk page, I will rebut your the validity of sources and arguments that either are not valid or, as an academic, if I feel the information will be strengthened as the arguments and sources need to be strengthened, and the gathering of that information will be helpful for anyone who wants to learn about the topic.

It may be the case that there is a history affinity group on Wikipedia where more discussion can happen and those people can help clean up articles like this that have some weak sourcing.

Other than that, I prefer for now that we don't chat with each other on the talk pages, or get too interested in each other's commenting style. SiciliaOliva (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Your feelings are entirely reciprocated. Stay off my Talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 10:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems not worth the trouble of prolonging interactions with them, as long as they aren't fouling up article space with nonsense. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Yup. I've only been jumping in to drive home the WP:V message, and hope he does something sufficiently stupid that one of the various admins who've tangled with him before gets involved again. I contemplated responding to his recent missive, with something on the order of "We've arrived at a challenge to unzip and compare?" or "If I relieve myself, someone will have to use a mop." Both would be unprofessional and uncivil, but the thought keeps me entertained. :-) Tarl N. (discuss) 20:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Heh :-). --JBL (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, Tarl N.. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of planetary systems in fiction, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I postponed deleting this draft. Do you expect to be doing any more work on it? Can you think of a WikiProject that would like to take it on as a project? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for thinking of this, but no, I think it's better if this is deleted. This was my attempt at dealing with Talk:Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction#Recent_large-scale_removals , and was abandoned when it became clear that as a compromise, it wouldn't work. The editors in question made it clear they'd delete all the entries from the table, anyway. The end result from other editors was that the content was preserved in its original form, so revising to a list became unnecessary. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 10:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I arrived at that conclusion based on the fact that the Camp Speicher massacre is listed here as having killed 1,566 people. The total death toll from the North Tower is estimated at 1,700, which obviously includes the 92 people killed in the hijacking and crash of Flight 11. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hmm1994: You "...arrived at that conclusion...". That constitutes WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. But most importantly, you did not provide a citation for it being the deadliest terrorist attack (which, by the way, would require a rather specific definition of terrorist attack, I can think of several larger events which some people refer to as terrorist attacks). The only reference you are providing is a Wikipedia list of events, and I'll remind you that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. When citing, Wikipedia should not ever be listed as a source. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Taisho79, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button   located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -Lemonaka‎ 12:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: You might consider WP:DTR. I'll note I made three edits to the talk page in question, the first two being final warnings (both signed), and the final edit was the required ANI template, which, being required boilerplate pointing at a discussion, I felt did not require a signature. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll make another attempt at retiring from Wikipedia. It's a new year, it's a good time to attempt a resolution. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's try to make the retirement real. I've been warned about tendentious editing, it's time to hang it up voluntarily. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)