UpdateNerd

Sandwitches (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

No offense Sandwitches, but talk pages are reserved for discussing improvements to the article, not for LOLz. To be fair though, it's a hilarious image. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You put the old text back, which gives a lot of (often outdated) details, but basicly no information someone would need at first glance when entering this page. It should be a compact overview. You said I should discuss it first, but you yourself didn't write anything is the "talk" section to explain your view. Do you think the text as it is now, is better than my text? Sorry if you felt insulted if the text was yours, but this is not a readable information any user would need at first glance. It might be usefull when you dig more into the history. I hope not, but there also might be a political motivation, since the text as it is now gives the impression it is a total faillure, while when focussing on the most important facts, especially number of miles built, the picture gets different. CorCorCor (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@CorCorCor: Main issue here, I think, is combining multiple changes into a single edit. Also, you should look for reliable secondary sources, not government websites which provide little context. I'm happy to keep helping improve the lead to reflect the current picture, which I appreciate that you're doing. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The official US CBP site is the main source, it is reliable, and there is also no obligation to use other so called secondary sources. Some question the definition of "new wall", and say replacing and old fence with a completely new wall, is not "new wall", but that context can be provided elsewhere in this article. It is no reason to not use this source. CorCorCor (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@CorCorCor: See WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ UpdateNerd Allright, I did not make my point as clear as I could. The basic demand is that a source must me trustworthy and easily understood. Not a link to raw research data, for example. The US CBP website is made to communicate the actual status of the wall to the general public, so an acceptable source. It could be called a secondary source also, because the primary source is spreadsheets etc. from the contractors. Of course it should be noticed that a large part is replacement for existing structure, which I did in the same sentence.

To deepen the discussion a bit: Secondary sources are best, but not always, and the distinction can be difficult to make, like here. In this particular case another factor comes into play: Many news sites (in practice the most used secondary source) try to spin the progress either way on this very politisized subject. Taking all this into account, the US CBP site is the best source to start with. CorCorCor (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@CorCorCor: I have no problem with using the website as a ref (in addition to coverage by the news), although it doesn't provide more than a statistic. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Some sources I found that could be added for the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page. These have mentioned by some respected sources, and even a few historians.

“As he died his breathing grew quieter, his face more calm.^[1] According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} Historians, most notably author Lee Davis have emphasized Lincoln's peaceful appearance when and after he died: "It was the first time in four years, probably, that a peaceful expression crossed his face."^[7] Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Lincoln Administration, Maunsell Bradhurst Field wrote, "I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing."^[8][9] The President’s secretary, John Hay, saw "a look of unspeakable peace came upon his worn features".^[10]

• Thanks! I’ve made that addition. Let's see how it fares. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi UpdateNerd, I just wanted to say there was no need to list the above merger at WP:PM as being "done" if you were going to do it yourself anyway: the page is for people who are unsure how to tag and perform the merger themselves, and are asking for help in doing it. In any case, there was no point in tagging it for a proposed merger if you were going to carry it out yourself anyway a few hours later, as you did – either do the merger boldly straight away and see if someone reverts it, in which case follow WP:BRD: or tag the pages and wait a week or two to see if anybody contributes to the discussion.

You also shouldn't have deleted the page, but redirected it to the page of the merged article: an admin has corrected your mistake, so don't worry about this now... just wanted to let you know for next time. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks Richard3120, I gathered that as I went. I didn't delete the page, just flagged it and someone did the redirect. Now I remember that a redirect is the proper way to go. My first time doing the merger process so I wanted to be thorough. Thanks for bearing with my newb mistake & clarifying the process for the next time. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem – looking at the past versions of the two pages, I think you were right to carry out the bold merger. No harm done. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If it's reverted again, I recommend waiting longer (WP:MERGECLOSE for more information). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, I hadn't seen that page or time limit. I'd been told to just go for it if it seemed incontrovertible per WP:BOLD. It's in my watchlist should I need to reprocess it. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Hitler body.png, which you've attributed to https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-hitler. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa: I restored my edits with justification for doing so. You can see the footage of the Soviets' arrival here. (Ignore the Youtube user's title for the video, which is inaccurate.) History.com and other documentaries' use of the footage proves it came from the USSR footage made in Berlin, not some fake. (Also, the bullet wounds match what is described in the article, and the skin deformation shows evidence of partial, but not complete burning at that point.) UpdateNerd (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove deletion nominations from images you have uploaded. Wait for an administrator to review. Your addition of the photo has been challenged. Per the WP:BRD cycle, you need to proceed to the talk page and discuss, not re-add your edit. I have opened a thread at the article talk page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler#I have removed an image, where you are welcome to add comments. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you continue your POV editing on this article, making the conspiracy theories seem more creditable ny changing phrasing, I will ask for a topi ban for you. You must stop. Your next violation of WP:NPOV will result in a report to WP:ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your work on cleaning up Star Wars and List of Star Wars films and television series. The unliateral edits by CapLiber and others were making it chaotic. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I hope it's a Wookiee cookie! UpdateNerd (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Li in Neo-Confucianism is not to be confused with Li in Confucianism. One is 理, the other is 禮. In Classical Chinese, the difference is both semantically and orthographically obvious. I have removed your merge proposal. Thank you for your understanding.----Sunzhai (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, [1] a short piece about the CIA investigating a report that Hitler lived in Columbia does not support adding the qualifier "most" to the fact that historians and other experts reject the idea that Hitler didn;t commit suicide in the bunker and instead escaped to South America. The CIA investigates things, that's their job -- they are not historians or scientific experts, nor, in fact, did they report any truth to the claim.

I've warned you before that if you continue to try to water down Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death to make the theories look more acceptable than they are, you would be reported at AN/I and a topic ban sought to prevent you from editing the article. You must stop this behavior.

I suggest that Diannaa, Kierzek and K.e.coffman might like to contribute to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reference I added actually states that most historians believe he died in Berlin. The headline is insignificant. But I recognize that the proper way to push for the change would be to obtain consensus, so I won't try to add it again myself. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

UpdateNerd, BMK is correct! Remember, "if ten people tell you you're drunk...", you best lie down. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Making BOLD edits in good faith is what Wikipedia is all about. If you disagree with a single edit you can just revert it, ideally by stating which part of a policy was being broken. I don't have an agenda to weaken the article, just make it better. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is trumped by WP:V and WP:consensus and WP:RS and don't forget WP:Deadhorse, in the back of your mind, which is what this is. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

True about consensus, etc., but dead horse is a moot point. The article I cited (using the phrase most historians) is post-2009, when the DNA testing was done. I'm not saying that this has caused all modern historians to revise their position, but the ones that believe in science most likely will. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page, can you change the words “According to eyewitnesses, he face was fixed in a smile when he expired” to “According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.65.40 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the current wording is simpler and makes more sense. Did you want to emphasize that only some eyewitnesses reported this, or was there another part that was looking inaccurate? UpdateNerd (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is one; add in these words before the John Hay source and it have it be a part of it. "John Hay, the president's personal secretary, observed that "a look of unspeakable peace came over his worn features."^[1]

While edits are welcome that are helpful, you seem to be becoming obsessed with changing and making additions to this GA rated article. Since you have not worked on bringing an article up to GA before, let me tell you that this article has been well vetted and the words used, sentence structure, paragraph placements have been poured over as to detail and consensus of the WP:RS sources; also as to grammar and frankly agreement of the editors. Some of your edits/additions have been fine, but you are now making wholesale changes and moving paragraphs around. This is becoming disruptive. If this continues the article could lose its GA rating. Therefore, you may be reverted, especially when you do not have agreement/consensus for said changes and additions. Especially, an article such as this, we do not want to add speculation and non-verified conjecture or something merely reported by some unknown and unnamed person. If you have questions, I will try to answer them and Diannaa and Beyond My Ken may want to comment, as well. Please also see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

How will I get a consensus if nobody talks on the discussion page that I have opened?

All I want is to add to the heading that Spain participated in the war. JamesOredan (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wait longer than a day for a conversation to occur. I’ll share my point of view there rather than explaining where no one will see it. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I deleted an edition claiming that the information that Spain participated in the war already appears in the header, but on the other hand France also appears at the beginning of the heading and afterwards it is also mentioned that it participated in other paragraphs.

What kind of joke is this? JamesOredan (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is a part you can change for the assassination section on Abraham Lincoln; add in these words before the John Hay source and separate it from the witnesses who described Lincoln smiling when he died. "John Hay, the president's personal secretary, observed that "a look of unspeakable peace came over his worn features."^[1]

Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your continuing effort to WP:OWN this article by making frequent small changes to the content, and then reverting anyone who changes what you do is getting to be quite annoying. I suggest that you back off, unless you relish being brought to ANI for your behavior. Instead of reverting, discuss your objections on the talk page, and stop making many frequent tiny changes -- you are not the only editor of this article, nor are you the final arbiter of what goes into it. Please read and understand WP:OWN and adjust your behavior accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't trying to force my changes (see the talk page for why the redundancy argument failed). I reverted your format changes made without edit summaries, which are always good to include so other editors can understand your reasoning. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I love the work you have done with the Star Wars franchise, with the neat organization that correlates to the franchise and not the finer details for the individual pages. As such, I wanted to approach you, as I could use some serious help with the Alien franchise page. The whole page is a mess, with content from a separate crossover franchise - AvP - spilling over and all sorts of garbled nonsense everywhere. Would you be interested in diving in with me, to help fix up that trainwreck of a page? By the way, I see that nice IMDb link-- very impressive! Here's mine! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! I'm fairly knowledgeable about that franchise and the ones it connects to, so I'd be happy to contribute as I have time. Cheers! UpdateNerd (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's splendid! The biggest problems facing the page are that it's constantly bombarded with content from AvP which deserves at most a minor mention near the bottom of the page, plus the duplication of content from other pages. People don't seem to understand that AvP isn't the same franchise. So, if you jump into it at the same time, we can tackle this page! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look at it, but probably not much before the next week. In general, it's all about relevance. Articles on fiction don't necessarily need to be segregated based on in-universe franchise canonicity. What's most logical is referring to what has come before in real-world time, with references. If there are mentions to things that weren't yet produced because of an in-universe connection, it should be removed unless somehow relevant, and with even better sourcing.

In SW lingo, the original trilogy articles shouldn't reference the sequels that much, because they hadn't yet been made. But the sequel articles should mention the original trilogy, as those films contain many references to the older material. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there! Sorry for not following up; life got ahead of me! There was a bit of an AN/I battle with a disruptive editor, but now there's a cleanup effort for Alien (franchise). Would you be able to help me with the Theatrical films section? I love how streamlined the Star Wars page is, with there not being the individual subsections - aside from the identifying series - so, I believe that would behoove Alien. Would you happen to have time this week to help me condense it? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DarthBotto: Thanks for the heads up. I have limited time this week/month, but I will take a look and work on anything that stands out to me! UpdateNerd (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories 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. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I was edit-warring; I instated a different version which attempted to address the point of confusion. Considering you also reverted yourself, wasn't this warning was a little preemptive? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can call it that, but I didn't repeat any single edit, and I was clear about that in my edit summaries. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. Concerning your calls for lower-casing to president of the United States? you should also include vice president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you please not de-capitalize at George Washington & John Adams articles. Get a consensus for all the US presidents & vice presidents bios, first. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@GoodDay, I was planning to just start with the first president and vice president to see if any logical objections arise. Obviously such a change would need to be across the board. I respect the consensus process, but it's pretty unnecessary when the MoS has clear guidelines. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest that you bring your suggestions to the Donald Trump article. Be advised though, the consensus there is for President of the United States. GoodDay (talk)

@GoodDay, whether the same rule applies to the acting President is another conversation entirely. Since you reverted my edit, you should be able to explain why we should ignore what the MoS or style guides say. I think the suggestion that a consensus conversation needs to happen on every president page is ridiculous. The style guides are clear, although not necessarily for the current President. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Consistency across all bios of US presidents & vice presidents should be maintained. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@GoodDay Which should, in turn, be consistent with the manual of style, which as it states in the lead, always has precedence "if any contradiction arises." UpdateNerd (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Make your changes in backwards order in the pros, starting with Barack Obama & Joe Biden. PS: But don't decapitalize in the infoboxes titles. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note: I've mentioned your preferred plans, at the talkpage of the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't be making such changes (as you did to Joe Biden & Mike Pence), until you get a consensus to do so, across all US prez & vice prez bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you'd noticed, but I've undone most of your changes to lede of Pyramid of Unas. The boat pits are definitely there, "but whether they actually held wooden boats like that of Khufu or were just symbolic is debatable." From Clayton 1994, p. 63. Some sources, like Grimal 1992, p. 123, argue that the limestone pits are the boats without wooden barques, while others argue that it's likely they did contain wooden barques, like Verner 2001d pp. 337-338. These different interpretations are the source of the speculative writing. For future reference, the lede should generally not contain citations, though I always add one plus a footnote for the dating since it's not worth restating in the body of the article. Hope that clarifies the revert (I kept your change of tense, since the pits haven't grown legs and walked away). Do check the body of the article, which should contain a sourced statement and all relevant citations next to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re [2], I don't think it helps the situation to legitimize the misguided notion that we need to rehash the guideline at article level. I reiterate this. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mandruss An RfC seems like a good idea. But where should it occur, if not at the individual article level? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of process, I feel that any new RfC should be started by someone who (1) disagrees with the current guidance and (2) can make a case that the current guidance has not received an adequate community-level hearing. If they are not prepared to start one and make that case, resistance to compliance edits should be viewed as obstructionist disruptive editing, which is sanctionable behavior. In my view it harms the project in the long term for editors to take any other approach, even if that might be expedient in the short term.
That said, if I were to start such an RfC I would do it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and advertise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, and anywhere else I could think of that might have a particular interest in the subject. If I lacked a lot of experience formulating RfCs (I don't), I would first consult with someone who has that experience on framing, as many an RfC has been derailed by poor framing. If someone complained that "Hey! This belongs at WT:MOS!!", I would calmly reply that I wanted maximum exposure and I've found that little discussion notices at WP:VPP don't attract much attention. There are no bright-line rules about such things. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's too much work for me relating to things I don't understand—I'm just a grammar nut. Feel free to direct anyone else to the process you suggested, though. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've already invited guideline opponents to do this, multiple times in various venues, and so far they prefer to avoid close scrutiny of the issue. At least some of them have the necessary experience. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect they know it wouldn't go their way. As for guideline supporters, I'm not going to direct anyone else to an approach that, as I said, I feel harms the project in the long term. As I suggested in the opener, I think the Trump discussion would be better off without your last comment, and it's not too late to remove it until it has a reply. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate all the tips, but I think that link show guideline opponents logic that might lead them to being less oppositional. I don't see how its presence hurts the process, although I rephrased it to summarize my thoughts, and hopefully sound less confrontational. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It harms the project by legitimizing the view that MoS issues affecting many articles should be addressed at an individual articles, where "the strongest cases, the greatest participation, and the most rigorous possible examination" do not and cannot occur. A bunch of cursory looks at the issue don't add up to a thorough look at the issue. You're not the only one doing this by any means, but I hoped to convert just one. If you're still not convinced, I'm well practiced at shrug-and-move-on. After over 5 years my capacity for resignation is great. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I respect your point of view, although I'm having a hard time understanding it. You present a "process over content" argument, but I'm not concerned about the content; I'm only pointing out an issue with the form. If this actually were a discussion about whether or not to include certain prose, then all of your arguments would be fully justified (and I'm not saying they're not here). But this is a question of whether or not to follow the MOS, which to my mind does not need consensus to decide, although I understand that forcing my view by rereverting edits would be viewed negatively. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, we seem to differ on semantics. To me, the choice of p or P is content, as is anything else that a reader sees in an article, no matter how small.
this is a question of whether or not to follow the MOS, which to my mind does not need consensus to decide - Exactly. So why are you seeking a consensus to decide it, instead of simply saying what you just said? Comments like yours invite and encourage counter-productive behavior by other editors at that article, and perpetuate it at all articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Although consensus on the local specific issue would be great, my comments were actually not seeking that, but rather consensus to value the MOS generally over past local consensus to ignore it, which could then justifiably be applied to the other affected articles, rather than having the same conversation over and over here, there and everywhere. Since applying the change to this article in particular seems to have been the most contentious in the past, it would make sense to raise the issue there, no? UpdateNerd (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

After 10 days and 2,200 words, we've seen participation from nine (9) editors, some of it consisting of one or two sentences from that editor. Nine is not many compared to the 50+ one typically sees at a maximum-exposure RfC. The vast majority of the discussion has been about process. The little discussion about content has comprised precious little substantive evidence, such as a comprehensive survey of relevant style guides. The recognized master builder of such cases, SMcCandlish, hasn't even made an appearance, probably because (1) he, like me, is philosophically strongly opposed to rehashing settled MoS issues at article level, and (2) he knows it wouldn't be worth his effort because so many editors would say that any result at Donald Trump applies only to Donald Trump (logical fallacy notwithstanding). There is no way any closer could divine any consensus at all from that discussion, which means that it was a complete waste of time. Given all of that, please explain how it made any sense to raise it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mandruss are you sure Village Pump is the right place? It states in its header that it's the place to discuss changes to policy, not whether to implement them. My concern is with the latter. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have you changed your mind as to what you said here? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I decided to reconsider and clicked on the first link of your suggestion, but as I just stated, am not sure that's the right course of action. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have a point as to the VPP instructions, but Village Pump is still the only place to get maximum exposure. I suppose you could do the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and frame it as a proposal rather than a question. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) would be the only other appropriate VP page, but it doesn't get enough attention in my opinion.
I should reiterate that I don't recommend that editors do complex RfC framing solo until they have some years of experience with it. This may seem like a simple question, but it can get complicated quickly; for example JOBTITLES has multiple parts and an editor may oppose one part while supporting the rest. I don't claim to be perfect, mind you, but two heads are sometimes better than one. I would be willing to work with you in a sandbox and would volunteer User:Mandruss/sandbox if needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging SMcCandlish: Any opinion as to whether such an RfC is a good move at this time? (UN, this didn't generate a notification; any notification has to be coded in the same edit as the signature.) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit to wade through, and this will consequently be kind of long, since it involves various different kinds of community strategy things: First, arguing whether "president" or "President" is proper English is not how to go about this. There is no official standards-issuing body for our language (unlike in French and Spanish, though those bodies are actually somewhat ignored anyway). See Prescriptive grammar and Linguistic description. It's a matter of how English, on average, is written in high-quality, contemporary materials, and what the preponderance of modern English-language style guides say to do. Those are the primary factors on which our own style guide is based. The trend since at least the late 1980s has been away from "auto-capitalizing" these (or any other) job titles, and only capitalizing them when directly attached to names.

Second, we don't need to have another RfC after we had an RfC pretty recently, and previous consensus discussion before that, in multiple venues, which even specifically included the US president. Re-re-re-RfCing this stuff is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING at worst, and tedious rehash at best (sometimes taken for tendentious). As in all style matters, it's simply impossible to please everyone (the important point is that editorial conflict about that particular peccadillo come to an end – you don't have to like WP's rules, but do follow them here).

So, yes, we should not be re-fighting this out article by article. The entire reason we have WP:AT policy and the WP:MOS guidelines is stop that behavior. These pages evolved because of the disruptive time-sink of editors recycling the same arguments in perennial "style wars" over and over and over again. It drains editorial productivity, strains editorial relations and collaboration, and produces confusingly inconsistent output. WP:IAR is only ever accepted by the community as a valid rationale when the reasons for a divergence are obvious common-sense matters and the rule is clearly faulty for a particular case, not because someone doesn't like the rule and wished it didn't apply to "their" page.

Mandruss is correct that the burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of someone alleging that an actual WP guideline somehow doesn't have consensus. The community almost never buys that argument. If someone insists on re-RfCing this, I would suggest that the proper venue is WT:MOSBIO, "advertised" at WP:VPPRO and WP:VPPOL. Otherwise, use WP:VPPRO itself, since this would in fact be a proposal, to change extant guidelines away from a consensus that was arrived at through RfCs and reaffirmed in later ones. Expect to have to prove your case, and to be contradicted by people who own and can cite pretty much every style guide ever published for the English language, and who have a lot of experience using tools like Google Ngrams correctly (and pointing out where failure to account for the tools' limitations produces statistically invalid results). It's "uphill, both ways", so it will probably be a futile waste of energy. Especially given that the first rule of MOS:CAPS is do not apply capitals where reliable sources do not consistently do so, and we know beyond any doubt that RS do not consistently capitalize "president" in the US political context. It's already a lost cause.

Keep in mind also (with regard to this and anything like it) that the community is tired of "style wars" and increasingly disinclined to listen to demands for special exceptionalism. Every time someone launches a "gimme my special style because I say so" RfC (especially at VPPOL itself), it poisons editorial patience for more vexing style matters that really do need a consensus discussion (not a re-re-re-discussion of a matter that's already been consistently settled in one direction). See for example the low turnout here; I expected roughly 4× as many respondents, especially given how widely this RfC was advertised both on P&G talk pages and wikiproject ones, and that it would affect over 1000 articles. People's eyes just glaze over: "Yet another F'ing capitalization squabble. <yawn>".

What I would do with this [p|P]resident stuff is just leave it alone. We already have a consensus arrived at via RfC. It will take time to percolate through articles and through editors' heads, and if it takes two years or five to clean it all up via WP:RM, including some temporary reversals at this article or that one, then so be it. Many things are like this; it really doesn't matter (WP:NODEADLINE). Any WP:STONEWALL behavior by a handful of "resist or die" types cannot last forever. If it actually turns out that the MoS or naming conventions guidelines on a point like this really don't reflect consensus any longer (WP:CCC), this will become clear if several years of RM discussion consistently go against what the guidelines say to do. (That possibility is why I opened the above-linked VPPOL RfC about breeds, but that brings us full circle to the point that turnout is so low, any result will have dubious real consensus value.)

In closing, I would offer the following: I entirely understand the feeling that parts of the MoS are "wrong" and the desire to change it. I arrived here with same feeling. There are at least 50 things in MoS I would have written very differently. However, I've become one of MoS's top five (probably top two) shepherds against willy-nilly changes, because I quickly realized that the value of such guidelines is in their stability not in the exact wording of their line items. Style issues in particular are mostly arbitrary. It matters more that editors follow a set of rules instead of fighting all the time over trivia.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the very thorough reply @SMcCandlish, and I'm sure I'll have a lot to respond to. If I understand correctly, it's been previously decided at a high level that the MoS reflects the proper capitalization of job titles, and yet local consensus "trumps" the rule. So, because we don't want to restart old RFCs at a high level, it more or less just comes down to whether or not consensus can be reached on the individual talk pages (such as the one begun here), correct? There seems to be more consensus for following the MOS at that particular conversation, with little opposition, except for disagreement on the best way to incorporate wikilinks (a trifling detail which can be changed later). @GoodDay has stated his willingness (in addition to myself) to help carry out edits on related pages for consistency, and has helpfully listed many of the categories below. As far as I can see, the only reason for me not to reincorporate my edit is ArbCom, and literally anyone else at anytime could state their justification for reinstating it, although my hands are tied. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The "consensus required" rule (bullet 2 of the ArbCom restrictions) has been removed and replaced with an "enforced BRD" rule. The new rule is still in a trial mode and apparently very tentative so I haven't tried very hard to understand it. But what I said here clearly no longer applies (IIRC I had reverted your CR rule-violating revert). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re: 'it's been previously decided at a high level that the MoS reflects the proper capitalization of job titles, and yet local consensus "trumps" the rule.' That's a mis-statement. WP:CONLEVEL policy clearly contradicts that idea. What happens in reality: MoS has (in various wording) the same basic rule throughout it: if RS (in general, not just from a particular field or publisher) which are about or which cover a subject almost uniformly do something stylistically for that subject in particular, and it isn't MoS's default, then that overrides MoS's default. This is the WP:IAR escape valve. What also happens occasionally and temporarily is that a closer who is either inexperienced or who is supervoting may close in favor of a variance away from MoS even when the sources don't support it (as in the case of a few pages about the American presidency, and we know for absolute fact that RS do not consistently capitalize it when not attached to an officeholder's name). This is actually a violation of WP:CONSISTENCY policy, and flies in the face of hundreds of prior moves of articles with job-title names, so it will be fixed later. You could bet money on it. You seem to have the idea that such a close is a stable consensus to vary from MoS for no reason other than the argument to emotion and special pleading (in this case American exceptionalism) presented by whoever showed up that week. I assure you it is not.

We just don't typically re-RM something immediately, because it's annoying and usually fruitless (the same active editors will show up with the same arguments and evidence). We let it alone for 6 months or a year, to give people time to rethink, to find different evidence, to come up with a different argument, and for other editors to become involved. There is WP:NODEADLINE, and WP isn't going to fall apart if an article is at a poor name (or has poor in-article style) for a while. It may take longer than average to fix the inconsistency at Trump-related articles because of the high emotions surrounding them and the additional ArbCom red tape.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The biggest resistance to de-capitalizing in bio articles, appears to be at articles of American federal government officials (US presidents, US vice presidents, secretaries of State, secretaries of Treasury, CIA directors, Supreme Court members, US senators, US representatives, etc etc), but not at bios of state-level only officials (i.e governors, lieutenant governors, state attorneys general, state senators etc etc), which some are capitalized, but others aren't, from what I can tell. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, as I've noted elsewhere, it's because old editions (like 1980s and earlier) of the Associated Press Stylebook and several other American style guides said to capitalize American national office titles, and many of us thus grew up with that being common, and us even being taught to use it as a "standard" (mostly people in their 40s and older). But it is not the present reality of American publishing, and has never been the reality of publishing in English more generally.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see FA Guy Fawkes is proposed for WP:TFA on November 5, 2019 [3] by KingEuronIIIGreyjoy. However, maybe a little postponement might be more to the point: 13 April 2020 marks his 450th birthday. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, thanks for your contributions. You've improperly uploaded some copyrighted image to Wikimedia Commons without permission of copyright holder, however. I've removed them for the related articles and tagged them for deletion, but wanted to explain to you what you did incorrectly. Commons is only for free images, meaning those in the public domain based on their age or location of origin; images you have created yourself for which you own the copyright and are granting unrestricted permission for their use on any Wikimedia site; or images by someone else for which the copyright holder has granted unrestricted permissions. Images like File:Darth Vader's advanced TIE fighter.png are not owned by you, so you cannot upload them to Commons. Also, know that making a scan or a screenshot does not make you the copyright holder (you don't seem to have done this, I'm just letting you know). Photographs like File:Captain Phasma costume.jpg are acceptable for Commons if they are taken by you with your camera and you are releasing all rights.

Non-free images can be uploaded to regular Wikipedia space as "fair use", under specific conditions (see Wikipedia:Non-free content for the full guideline). Basically, a copyrighted image like File:Princess Leia's characteristic hairstyle.jpg is acceptable in Princess Leia because it is the primary means of illustrating the subject of the article, as explained in the required fair use rationale on the image page. This image would not be acceptable in Carrie Fisher because non-free images generally cannot be used in biographical articles (an exception being if the person is deceased and there are no readily-available free images of them, as with Margaret Whitton). It would also not be appropriate to place the Leia image in every Star wars article; each article should use non-free images sparingly, restricting them to title cards and significant elements that help understanding of the topic. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@TAnthony, the images were (rightly or not) uploaded to the source website under CC-0. Since they're derivative of models, not sculptures, I'm not sure whether the copyright is violated. They were perhaps wrongly uploaded to begin with, but it really depends on what's being depicted. Are they showing copyrighted models designed and colored by the trademark holder, or are they fanmade 3D models of a trademarked subject? As long as the material isn't being used commercially, and the art itself isn't copyrighted, perhaps they qualify as CC. Without being able to tell how the images were made, though, I think perhaps a low-resolution fair use tag would be the only safe way to use them, e.g. as the main image of an article.

I don't contest their removal, but perhaps you have some thoughts about their possible legitimacy. I really don't mind their removal as decorative plot summary elements, but some of them could be very useful for depicting specific story elements, e.g. particular vehicles. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

My apologies to you. While the source pages of the images from clker.com don't seem to adequately establish rights for their use, I did not notice that the pixbay images have a clear Commons license. I have rescinded the deletion notices on those two images, and added File:Darth Vader's advanced TIE fighter.png to the TIE fighter article in good faith.— TAnthony^Talk 04:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all; it appeared otherwise to you. Actually, the images on clker.com are also stated to be CC0 at the Terms of Use & Disclaimer link that appears on each image url. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi UpdateNerd, I added (OT) to Star Wars Trilogy because it had been added to OT (not by me) and I was trying to clean up the DAB page. All entries on acronym DAB pages should include the acronym in the target article. Before I removed entries, I do a Google search to see if it is commonly used, and it seemed that many sites use OT for original trilogy, so I added it. However, I'm not very familiar with the culture of Star Wars and have no objection to it being removed. If this really isn't a reasonable acronym, I'll remove it from OT as well. Leschnei (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Leschnei: thanks for bringing that to my attention, as I didn't realize that was the case. "OT" is usually only seen on fansites, and not in an official context, which is what is represented on most of the Star Wars articles. So unless we change the "PT" and "ST" articles to link to the respective Star Wars pages, I would suggest its removal from the "OT" article. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's fine with me; I'll take care of it. This is why acronym pages drive me crazy - they collect so much garbage. Leschnei (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

UN, this article has had a ton of editor attention over many years, trying to keep the hype down, the POV neutral, etc. When you make a long string of edits that starts by changing misinterpreted to interpreted, you're going to need to engage in some discussion. And please be patient, go slow, make independently undoable edits, etc., if you want to avoid wholesale reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dicklyon: An "interpretation" can still be a misinterpretation. That was based on 2 against 1 RS using different wording (Nixon p. 93 being the tie-breaker weakly supporting a 'correct' interpretation). I'm not opposed to reverting the wording, but why did you revert a bunch of other changes which were well-sourced? As a rule (because of the problem of "golden numberism"), any addition I've made is verifiable in the citation. That wasn't the first of a string of edits, just an arbritrary point that you noticed, which can be verified. Please change only the parts you reject; I find the notion that the article had any prior stable status hard to be taken seriously. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've invited more discussion at Talk:Golden ratio. My objection was not to that one point; that was just an example of the kind of POV change that needs to be discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

UpdateNerd, do you have comprehension issues? First of all, in relation to your first edit, unless you cannot read the sentence, the sentence did not imply that he was any of the professions ascribed to him before his voyages to the New World. Additionally, he was neither a colonist, nor an explorer, before his four voyages. Secondly, since when does the word "colonist" imply being a governor? Really, all of the mariners on Columbus's voyages were all governors? Interesting concept... Actually, the term governor being more specific and more encompassing as a higher rank, would supercede a colonist who is simply a participant in a human colony (your argument is: "colonist' already an umbrella term which includes his governorship")...Do you just make changes for the sake of things? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Stevenmitchell: I never said "colonist" implies "governor", but since he was only a governor after finding new lands, it really creates a flow issue to introduce that specific title just before saying he went on multiple voyages. We wouldn't say "Nixon was a resigned president who became the president," would we? (It's also already near the top of the infobox.) You can argue for the change, but you'd have to get consensus on the Columbus talk page. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I removed the constant Han Solo and Darth Vader references to the films cast as both characters are long dead in the franchise's running order similar to all the constant comments by others that Fisher had died and this was her last film.

Han Solo only needs to be mentioned once and that is for Kylo Ren's parentage - if that is OK?

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to readd the citation needed sections. I didn't mean to remove them. My other edits are explained in the summary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rainbowofpeace: Regarding the Eastern and Southern Europeans which include Jews; this is what the sources say. It wasn't any other Jewish people who were singled out for their race. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello UN. Thanks for the ping thanks on G's article. I'm not sure if my edit effected the one you made earlier today so you might want to double check just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 10:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MarnetteD: Hi, no I don't think anything was effected. Just some minor copyediting of the removed content. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good deal. I appreciate your checking on things. MarnetteD|Talk 10:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

And the symbolism of royalty and legitimacy. Previously illustrating the specific paragraphs (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excalibur&direction=prev&oldid=887825139). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, How can you say that a poor quality reproduction "looked better before"? Beside File:A portrait of Leonardo, by Francesco Melzi.jpg is a recent copy from a museum, so it is certainly better anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just because the resolution is lower doesn't mean it's lower quality. The contrast has been changed to make it easier to see the drawing's subject, which is the subject of the article. If it were an article on the portrait then an accurate rendering would be required, but the article is about Da Vinci, so the most accessible rendering should be used. Also, the higher resolution version has shadows which look poor in the infobox. At any rate, I added "other version" links to both images so the user can easily find the other. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I made another version with more contrast, and I edited the shadows. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Looks great to me. I made that the new version of the PNG with a transparent background. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

When trying to research a response on the Star Trek list page, I looked into what Star Wars did on the same topic. It would seem the lists as created are similar. However, I also see that the changes to these lists/articles have been quite recent and that you have played a large role in both of the changes. I don't believe that either the List of Star Trek films and television series nor the List of Star Wars films and television series as written actually should be classified as lists. I believe lists for both topics are appropriate, but the majority of the prose on the pages should be spun off into separate articles. I don't want you to take this personally. I have been in situations where I have but a lot of work into certain articles on wikipedia and I don't like people seemingly undoing everything (though I dont think I am advocating this). While I don't believe that you have reached a true concensus on the Star Trek page, I do see that the Star Wars list is a product of a lot of discussion. Because this is a discussion on now lists should be styled in general, I have posted discussion on the Wikiproject Lists. I would appreciate if you could contribute to the discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should have read what you said more carefully. After looking at the MCU lists, and seeing that they are both Featured Lists, I guess lists can look like that. Like you, I don't paricularly have the energy to reopen the discussion for Star Wars are Star Trek. I would say that WP:SIZERULE would suggest that the Star Wars page with a size of 156,885 bytes and Star Trek with a size of 81,509 bytes should be split into separate movie and list pages. Again, I think a lot of good work has been put in these pages. I appreciate you hard work. Oldag07 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Oldag07: Thanks for your feedback again. I don't consider the above lists settled issues, and agree with you that a list article should actually feel like one. The MCU "list" is slightly ridiculous with its sections of purely prosaic content. I also understand that, per WP:OTHER, just because a solution works in one arena does not mean it should be applied to other articles (e.g. applying Star Wars logic to Star Trek), but the ST articles had so much cruft and seeming lack of attention that I went forward anyways. I wasn't familiar with WP:STARTREK so wouldn't have known about going there to get more editors to comment. There seemed to be no objection at the time I made those changes. You are the first person to comment on the issue, and I agree that this is part of a larger discussion that should be handled at a higher level, with a guideline also established to dictate further decision-making. I'm happy to contribute to the wikiproject discussion you linked above.

You may also want to comment at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Split proposed to support splitting out the more detailed information to a non-list article. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your understanding of copyright is flawed. There was never any requirement for a 1950 copyright to be renewed, because they never had time to expire. They were all extended automatically in January 1978, and again 20 years later. I would've preferred to remove your pointless duplicate image from the Fred Trump article based on the pointlessness of it being a duplicate, but then I noticed that you'd lied about the copyright notice. That's a really bad idea. Just because other web sites don't care doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't. The Foundation is vary careful about it, because WP is just a juicy target for litigation. Tverbeek (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Tverbeek: Hold up, I didn't lie. The first portion of the text you initially removed was generated by a template, and indeed misleading that it "was published without a copyright notice". (I probably selected the wrong field uploading the image and didn't read it correctly.) Regardless, PD-US-not renewed, which I believe is the correct licensing tag, explains that works published before 1963 (the year the Brooklyn Eagle went out of business permanently) are in the public domain. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

"I didn't lie, I just wrote something untrue." Give me a break. And buy some glasses, because if you think those photos don't look alike, there's something serious wrong with your perception. Tverbeek (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! I just wanted to apologise for that borderline edit war I almost had with you over the Star Wars films being described as "epic space opera films" versus "epic space-opera films". I was trying to decide which talk page I should start a discussion about it on, since the same situation was happening on every Star Wars film article (you forgot to initially revert my edits to Rogue One and Solo: A Star Wars Story though, haha). That's when I came across the Talk:Star Wars#"American epic space opera franchise" vs "American epic space-opera franchise" discussion. I changed my mind about the hyphenation after reading Aikclaes' point that "too many [linked] attributive adjectives makes it hard to decipher without the hyphen". MOS:LINKCLARITY is a relevant guideline to look at. It's kind of funny actually, since I've edited the article for Alien (film) to say that it's a "science-fiction horror film" before, and yet it always returns to being called a "science fiction horror film". –Matthew - (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks MatthewHoobin, no problem. I recently changed the description of the movie The Death of Stalin from "a political satire black comedy film" to "a political-satire black-comedy film". We'll see how long it stays like that. ;-) Aikclaes (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Aikclaes: Usually modifiers that end in "-ly" or "-al" don't need to be compounded, so I think it would be "a political satire/black-comedy film". UpdateNerd (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@UpdateNerd: There's a big difference between words ending with "-ly" (adverb; no hyphen) and "-al" (adjective; hyphen needed). "Political" and "black" are both adjectives. Dashes, like in your suggestion, should be avoided, since it's unclear whether they mean "and" or "or". Aikclaes (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Hello all. I would label TDoS a treat to watch but that is pure WP:OR :-) Best regards to everyone. MarnetteD|Talk 03:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I still find this issue a bit conflicting. I can understand hyphenating "space opera" or "science fiction" if need be, and I understand the rationale behind hyphenating "political satire black comedy", but "political-satire black-comedy" just looks so off to me. –Matthew - (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Having as many as four modifiers in front of a word is what makes it look heavy. The hyphens help the reader understand, and are necessary, but best would be to write it in a different way, for instance "a film in the genres of political satire and black comedy". This phenomenon is called "stacked modifiers". Here's an article about it: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/stacked-modifiers Aikclaes (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You could justifiably shorten it to "satirical black-comedy film". Satire can include political themes, and you don't need to get maximally descriptive in a genre description. Otherwise, Star Wars would be an action/adventure/Space Western/Jidaigeki/family/science-fiction/fantasy film. It has elements of all these and more, which is why we simplify it to "epic space-opera film". UpdateNerd (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:The Hutt Gambit.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Conciseness in the appearance section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Star Wars shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Railfan23 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have opened a 3RR noticeboard thread about this. Toa Nidhiki05 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Toa Nidhiki05: Five reverts of the same user who tried to introduce sweeping changes without discussion. Kind of like how you reverted me, only I listened to your advice. Just so you know for the discussion, since you flagged me. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I noted your recent changes about the border wall construction, and wanted to mention some information I found:

Before Trump became president, 654 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. Mexico border had primary barriers. As of today, that hasn’t increased.

To date, the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated barriers with new fencing. Some officials including CBP have presented this as an extension of the total barrier, but this is factually incorrect.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/aug/30/donald-trumps-border-wall-how-much-has-really-been/

There have been some misleading statements by officials and others which seem to suggest that this is actually an extension and not a replacement, so it is understandable why you added this. Please make sure to include citations to reliable sources in additions like this in the future. I'm sure that there will be an actual increase at some point, so the issue may need to be revisited with citations soon.

Ofus (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no mention of "International English" in WP policies, and it should not be invoked in illegal attempts to enforce American English, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. In any case, afaik International English remains a largely theoretical idea, and there is no agreement as to how particular words should be spelled in it. I've noticed a number of your edits hitting my watchlist which ignore policy. Please be more careful. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: Thanks for explaining your reasoning in more detail, as I was not aware of that. Which form of English should be used really comes down to consensus, although I lean personally toward using American English on articles which deal largely with content specific to that country and vice versa. British English is the leading form of the international variants, and is closer to how the language is read worldwide. In any case, articles shouldn't use a mixture of two styles, as is the case on the article I noticed you reverted attempts to make more consistent. All the same, thanks for letting me know your reason for reverting. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't edited the article, just saw the edit summary. Looking at it now, I can't see any ENGVAR indicators before "savior" in late 2018, or current inconsistencies - if you can, let me know. Having spent 300+ years in England, vs about 4 in the US, arguably it has a stronger connection to the UK. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: My mistake, I assumed that the same editor commented here after reverting. The word 'center' is inconsistently spelled 'centre' at one point in the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yup - fixed that. It was very recent of course. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding the bit about the X-rated trading card picture of C-3PO. I had quite forgotten about that little gem (or perhaps not so little) - we need more of this on Wikipedia to lighten the mood!   Cnbrb (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tatooine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calabasas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Stop. Now/ You're only screwing things up. Go edit something else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re: [4]

Our MoS says that an article may use either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash, provided it does so consistently. That article used spaced ndash consistently, and a certain amount of effort has gone into achieving and maintaining that consistency. Guidance also says that, when MoS allows multiple ways of doing something, editors should not mass change an article to suit their personal preference.

Unfortunately that edit slipped through the cracks, it's too late to simply undo it, and I'm not going to ask that you reverse the changes (especially since you would probably refuse to do so anyway). But don't do that again.

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Mandruss: Thanks for pointing that out. I'd misremembered or misunderstood the MoS & would be happy to fix that change, and also edit more carefully regarding dashes in the future. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that and apologize for pre-judging you based on experience with others. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Three years on, and you're still reverting these. You remind me of a certain kind of orifice... 174.95.58.122 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

...frig around with bottom of the page section names to suit your own (rather unusual) preferences. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guy Fawkes mask; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I never changed anything back; I tried to make a compromise edit. But I will leave it for future discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

A lot of people have contributed to this article. I appreciate you may have acted in good faith, but please show respect by not vandalising it. Obscurasky (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article for Star Wars (film) used to read: "Kurtz has corroborated that they wanted to include an episode number to emulate the chapter numbering used in the Flash Gordon serial, and that they had considered a high number for the first movie from the beginning."

You edited it so that now it reads: "Kurtz has corroborated that they had originally considered using a higher episode number for the original film to emulate the chapter numbering used in the Flash Gordon serial."

But the Flash Gordon serial had nothing to do with their decision to use a higher episode number for the first Star Wars movie. The Flash Gordon serial started with episode 1. It was only relevant to their decision to include an episode number, not to the episode number they chose. - 2603:9000:E40B:7500:ECDD:7477:6678:4D25 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

What Kurtz said ("if you went to Saturday morning pictures and came in and saw episode eight of Flash Gordon"...) reflects that. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The actual vote in the HJC is today. The report and counter-report were presented to the HJC a few days ago and the mark-up began yesterday. The PTB have said that we cannot go further with the necessary new full article without "consensus" so what do we do? Do we just call the article the impeachment process and then have the votes and the trial there, or what?Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Arglebargle79: I'm sure the article will be renamed from "impeachment inquiry..." if the House vote passes. Just wait. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Defo no suspicious undeclared COI editing going on here, no siree! 😂😂😂 174.95.58.122 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've started a discussion re this issue at Talk:Guy Fawkes mask. Just letting you know in case you want to weigh in. :)

- 2A02:560:4235:6700:E590:3D43:25F0:D2E9 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

For articles such as Luke Skywalker I was wondering you might know how a reusable template might be made that could be reproduced in footnotes to references to Star Wars (film). I like the idea of a footnote because it could add reference to the A New Hope title (especially for readers that may not know it was called by the original title) but would do so less intrusively. A template would allow reproduction of the footnote in parallel articles. Ideas would be welcome.

GregKaye 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@GregKaye: That's a great idea! I've not yet made a template, but would be happy to contribute to the note. I would suggest that it say something like "Later subtitled Episode IV – A New Hope", linking to §Addition of subtitles. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can see the template in action now at Luke Skywalker. You can just paste {{EpIV}} to add the footnote to any page. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

cheers, I've started putting together a basic template which I'm yet to save. One issue is whether the mouse over for the footnote will still display the footnote content if it comes out of a template. I'll need to experiment.

I'm also thinking to see if a move can be made from "subtitling" to "titling" terminologies as per new topic: Talk:Star_Wars_(film)#Propose_using_"episode_title"_to_describe_to_the_later_part_of_"Star_Wars:_Episode_*_(A/The)_*_(of)_*"_title_sequences. There's another thought. GregKaye 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I still think that there would be merit in presenting events in the article in predominantly chronological order. The chronology is close but a presentation of dates would enable readers to assess the information for themselves. GregKaye 20:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

wording on the film's page could go something like "The first public record of texts Episode IV and A New Hope are on a title page.. " but I'm not sure how this would fit in with the rest of the sentence. At present I've put first published as I wasn't sure on "first introduced". Thinking about it maybe that could be "publically introduced". I'll not reedit now. GregKaye 22:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're Welcome I hate that new Surname of Palpatine the nerds are going crazy for that came from that stupid TARKEN Book. His first name is "Emperor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcardun (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Maxcardun: Totally! It's cool when it's mentioned on the character page and explained properly, but it's never said in the films so it should reflect the credits. However, recently it's been whispered that Lucas decided on the name for the Underworld series, and just let the Tarkin novel introduce it. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why? (Not to mention its top right corner.) --Brogo13 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Brogo13: Wikipedia articles always caption images in the body of an article. Since the article is about the Trump wall, not the Mexico–United States barrier, we should keep it clear what the picture is of. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting me. I hella misread the sentence and thought I saw something like my ridiculous title here. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC) @Millahnna: Haha, no problem. Cheers! UpdateNerd (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, concerning your edits of my references: sorry if i used references that are not allowed - i thought they were significant. Can you indicate a page listing allowed types of references? --Fah (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fah: Sure, no offense intended. WP:RS is a good place to start. We stay away from sources that may violate copyright and especially those like fan wikis which anyone can write. If it's an article from a news site, that's usually much better. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The phrase isn't made up by CNN but from "several officials familiar with the new approach". So I've attributed it to the officials now. This is verified by NYT, CNN, and WSP (all WP:RSPSOURCES) so please don't remove it again. "Controlling the messaging" is from the title of the NYT, and there are nothing redundant or unclear here. Also Wikipedia is a public place so no edit is done "secretly". Regards. -- Akira😼CA 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Akira CA: The phrase came straight from the CNN article. We shouldn't copy & paste (esp. without attribution) when we can paraphrase. "Controlling the messaging" is 100% redundant, because it refers to the White House instructing health officials to coordinate with the VP, which is exactly what the next sentence says. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@UpdateNerd: no it appears in all three sources (NYT, CNN, and WSP), not as opinion but news. Given the number of citations at the end of the sentence, attribution through footnote is enough per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. -- Akira😼CA 11:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Akira CA: You miss the point. I never said it was opinion and not news.

My actual points: There's no reason to say the same thing twice. It's confusing to do that. Every word should count on such a long article, not restate the same thing twice in the same sentence. Further, it makes zero sense to introduce the White House as the subject of the sentence and then drop in quoted text without clarifying who said it. Putting "according to several officials familiar with the new approach" at the end doesn't make it clear that the quoted text specifically was being referred to. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The sentence starts with "White House has been criticised" (by many sources on different matters) not what the White House have acutally be confirmed for doing, so it makes sense. Also I think the attribution issue is resolved? -- Akira😼CA 11:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also the "Controlling the messaging" is not redundant because it clarifies why and how the following sentence is a criticism. It is backed by reliable source too. Clarity is very important on Wikipedia while adding three words is negligible to the length of the article. (marginal profit) -- Akira😼CA 11:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Akira CA: Let me try to explain in detail. I think these issues are grammatical.

1) If you say 'The White House has been criticised for directing health officials to "coordinate all statements"', it has the effect of implying that you're quoting the directions of the White House.

2) That would make sense if you said "controlling the messaging by directing health officials...", rather than including a random comma in the middle, which makes it two points, not one. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

1) No...Using XXX as the subject in "XXX has been criticized for ..." is commonplace in Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Such expression is concise and widely accepted on Wikipedia when based on reliable sources. I don't see problems within it. However we can leave quotation marks to aviod ambiguity. -- Akira😼CA 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

2) What you said is what you've deleted before...[5] I think we can restore it now? -- Akira😼CA 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Get consensus on the article's talk page, because you've ignored every point I've made, and failed to convince me of anything. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No I'm not going to waste times on this, I will restore "controlling the messaging by directing health officials..." only. -- Akira😼CA 12:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Where would you suggest the information be placed then, if not in the lede? Considering that its verifiable through links as well as a multitude of sources (https://www.thewrap.com/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-now-has-the-franchise-lowest-rotten-tomatoes-score-phantom-menace/, https://movieweb.com/star-wars-9-worst-reviewed etc), it is lede-worthy to me. Important information about the film's critical reception that gives added weight to the extent of the mixed reviews noted. It has immense notability. Davefelmer (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Davefelmer: Nowhere actually, because the 'Audience response' section explains that the film was review-bombed. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Surely not our call to make, as the facts are the facts and it was the lowest reviewed. Its scores also line up with those of itself and other movies in the Metacritic results, which were not suspected of being review-bombed. Davefelmer (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Davefelmer: That's not what the sources on the article say. At any rate, it's not up to me or you. You'd have to get consensus at the article talk page to make the change. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You recently added something another editor reverted and added it again. This is contrary to norms. You should remove your edit and seek consensus on the articles talk page. I am fairly new here but I can hunt down a reference if you need it. See [Hero's journey]. —¿philoserf? (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Philoserf: Thanks for chiming it, but the original addition wasn't that recent, and the reason for it's removal wasn't valid. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agreed with the removal so I opened a discussion on the article’s talk page. The edit history is you added, they removed, you reverted. —¿philoserf? (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi UN. You added a merge tag to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, but you didn't start a discussion. WP:MERGEINIT explains the process in case you would like to initiate a merge proposal, although it may be advisable to wait until the AfD is closed. - MrX 🖋 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MrX: I realize the tag was a bit redundant. More than anything, it was a suggested redirect in the event the page gets 'deleted'. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious. Since you had some involvement with the Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Anarchyte (talk • work) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

When you post a merge tag on an article [6] it should link to where you started the discussion explaining why you think it should be merged. Dream Focus 13:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You know that you are still on a thin line in regard to your editing of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, right? You cam close to being sanctioned because of it, so why you should want to attract attention to yourself by messing with the long-term formatting of the References section is beyond me. The section has been the way it is for a long time, and MOS does not favoe one format over another, so you have no guideline to back you up. Further, ArbCom has ruled in a number of cases that edit-warring over MOS a permitted exclusion to WP:EW. Please back off, and consider not editing the article again, and certainy do no mess with the formatting of the References. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I note that you have been warned on this talk page about this behavior before. [7] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Whatever. The empty "informational notes" subheader wasn't there before, and your editing style is closer to edit-warring than my own. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please STOP adding old debunked WP:Fringe speculation of author Hugh Thomas both here and other articles, such as Eva Braun as you did here: [8]. The guy is not an WP:RS source. I do not know why you still want to add to articles from bias, propaganda work, such as Lev Bezymenski (1968) and the debunked work of Hugh Thomas. Even the book by Ada Petrova and Peter Watson is now dated and been surpassed. There are several such better RS works on the subject that are cited in the articles and used for the subjects of the Death of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun and I hope you consider using them on Wikipedia instead. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

UpdateNerd, thanks for your initial edits to the opening paragraph of Leonardo, hopefully people will chime in so we can continue to develop one. I'll be honest, I'm a little intimidated by working on such a huge figure (especially since 2000 people are watching the page!), but I have been collecting scholarly books for sometime now, so I felt it was appropriate to start doing so. I see that you've been watching the Leonardo page for a while and have done some edits to the Mona Lisa page; I have a feeling I'll be coming back here for advice/insight on things like what to include and what not, if that's alright? Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aza24: Yeah, I'll keep an eye on the page to see things how develop. No need to feel intimidated, I think you have some excellent ideas on improving the article. I've made quite a few fact-checking edits on Leonardo articles, but lately have not paid much attention to gradual poor additions. All for keeping a closer eye on keeping things tidy. I have less opinions about how alternative names or pronunciations are displayed (as far as I'm concerned, they can all be hidden in a footnote). UpdateNerd (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

(Update, for UpdateNerd :) SO many books! I thought I had enough... but given the amount of sources already used there are some others I need. That being said, an amazon gift card and low prices for used books (usually around 5 dollars, amazingly) makes it possible to get basically every book I don't have (the trade of is the slow delivery times though!). I don't know if you saw my basic plan for the page on Modernist's talk but given the ambition of that plan and the high quality expected from FAs (especially on a figure of Leonardo's reputation) something tells me this will indeed be a long process.

@Aza24: A year ago the article was much weaker, surprisingly so for already being a GA. I did a lot of work around then (hoping to improve the article for the 500th anniversary of his death) and added a lot of details which weren't mentioned at all before. I primarily referred to Wallace's The World of Leonardo: 1452–1519 (quality source; much Renaissance scholarship from the 1960s still holds up—although I've already mined this one thoroughly) and bits from Pamela Taylor's selections from Leonardo's notebooks. (Of course the notebooks are mostly available online but it's helpful to have selections highlighted. Intros of such works are also good for authoritative statements to cite.)

I will try to keep tabs on your larger plans. The way you laid things on the talk page was very thorough and helpful before, and I would hope to see more ideas presented there so I can contribute if anything appears to be in my field of focus. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well the 6 books I was missing are on their way from Amazon, less than $40! I ended up getting a copy of the Wallace book since it was so cheap – probably mostly for reference since you've gone through it. I have a feeling I'll be drafting a lot in the sandbox so I'll probably post links on the TP to there. Indeed the article is still particularly weak outside of the biography, the "paintings" section is no more than a list of works with commentary – my only fear is that the end result will be an article too long for people to comfortable with, but I guess we'll have to see what happens. Aza24 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aza24: The Wallace book and the "World of" series it's a part of is just good, so congrats on a well-informed purchase! And yes, I forget to mention before that my previous work has been primarily concerned with the biography. I personally like things chronological, so a section of commentary on his painting interests me far less. The section on his notebooks/drawings has some key information. But yes, there's always the linked articles for more detailed information, such as the one on his personal life, science, list of works, individual paintings, etc. Look forward to seeing your drafts. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, I just remembered the Italian version of the article has almost an alternate version of the biography. I hope to incorporate relevant information from that article, and hopefully also share relevant details from the English version. Editing via Google Translate takes all my mental energy, so that won't be happening too soon. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You reverted a correction I'd made, referring to contemporary accounts of Fred Trump being arrested in Klan robes. Please explain why you did this, on the page's "Talk" page.Rcarlberg (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Life of Albrecht Dürer of Nürnberg: With a Translation of His Letters and Journal and an Account of His Works|publisher=Seeley, Jackson and Halliday|year=1881 - is most unlikely to be a "more accurate" source on anything! There is no need to use 150 yo sources like this. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: I noticed the old date, but nevertheless it was a more detailed and accurate source (which I only expanded the page range of) than the misleading 1971 source I checked, which actually did have a typo I couldn't confirm to be correct. Strange that a more recent source hasn't been added to clear this up more, but our coverage on Dürer's parents is scant, and the Dürer article in general looks to be needing some revisiting. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think it's "more accurate"? If you haven't seen it, how do you know the later source is "misleading"? Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: I was the one who added the later source. It's a general book on Gothic Art, hardly about Dürer at all. It was a mistake to add information on Dürer from it, to be honest. Totally happy to help find a more authoritative source and information on Dürer's siblings, but this was not the right book. Sorry for the confusion. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

UpdateNerd, typically we don't use sources that old for anything more than provenance or descriptions of specific works. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please explain your justification for removing this image from the article. The standing of the image has not been challenged and should be eligible for use. I would like to restore it to the article. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@83d40m: Were you at the event and did you take the photograph yourself? If the answer is no, that's why I removed it and think the image should be deleted. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks—have noted at the image discussion that it should be deleted. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated the page, List of Star Wars films, as a featured list candidate. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added and edited 18.4% of the page. To join the discussion, click here. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you are an editor of the page universal basic income. I was wondering if you wanted to join or help Wikipedia:WikiProject Basic Income? The project is currently inactive so it could really use some participation by new members to kick-start it again.

I have also opened a move request on its talk page here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basic Income#Requested move 22 October 2020 - to request that it be re-named to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic Income. If you could please spare a minute to leave a respond to this request on the talk page there it would also be much appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you. Helper201 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for reverting you. I saw "Waldseemuller" and quickly thought Columbus was being referred to by another, incorrect, name. Should have slowed down and read.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

From the 11th-45th president of the United States, it is always in short number form rather than word form, my goal was consistency among all presidents from Washington to Trump, may I ask why you're reverting edits regarding changes about this particular case? Thanks PyroFloe (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've realized now my mistake, I understand now that all Ordinal numbers from 1-9 need to be worded out PyroFloe (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted me twice now, and this is after I suggested that we resolve this on the article talk page. Uncited information cannot be in the article. Non-canon material cannot be in the article, as it is both outside the regular continuity of the character's existence (in-universe) and is considered - as non-canon - as trivial.

The point of cooperative editing is that when differences of opinion arise, we use the talk page to sort out a solution or, failing that, to build a consensus. I have presented solid reasoning as to why the material needs to be noted as non-canon, and have initiated discussion in the article talk page, as per protocol and civility. Please avail yourself of that discussion as well. I am eager to work with you towards a durable consensus, but edit-warring is the worst way to go about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jack Sebastian: First of all, I agree about using the talk page but was a little busy. I figured you would forgive that if I was clear in the edit summary. Per WP:BRD you would be the one edit-warring; I was simply restoring the status quo.

Note that we have a separate section for non-canon ('Legends') material. The works you are asserting are non-canon are literally in the canon section of the article. I kindly ask you familiarize yourself with how the canon was restructured by Disney, which was dumping all spin-offs (except The Clone Wars, which Lucas produced) from before April 2014. Later works are considered to be canon unless otherwise proven. Sources are always needed, but the burden of proof that these follow different rules than the rest of SW media is really on you. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a matter that we should use the talk page for the article to sort this out, don't you think? I usually use user talk pages to address editor-to-editor disagreements or disputes; I was thinking that the reverting between us wasn't going to help us find a resolution any easier.

I think that canon - as you are describing it - isn't accurate. That's what we need to sort out, and airing this issue out on the talk page allows more eyes on the subject.

Lastly, the imperative of maintaining the status quo pales in comparison with referenced information. If something is canon, then we need to accurately denote that, and vice versa.

See you in the article discussion page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

On 13 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at 5,593 pages, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 is the longest bill ever passed by the U.S. Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

When you created a redirect from Scirpus acutus to Schoenoplectus acutus, you neglected to check if the name was in use for any plant which in fact, it is. A quick method of checking is to click on 'What links here' to see if there are any incoming links that are not congruent with your intended redirect. Also, you did not include a sorting template, such as {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}}. Abductive (reasoning) 12:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought your comment on Talk:Universe was vandalism. Sorry for removing it.-The Space Enthusiast (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, re your revert or my edit to Christopher Columbus. I'll admit that my edit was a late-night error. My intention was to delete one of the notes, not at all what I did delete, as evidenced by the edit comment I left. Thanks for keeping an eye out! --Cornellier (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain this reversion? Was it unsourced on my part? Thanks. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 21:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, well in that case, the source is wrong. I'll find a source that gives the correct date and update it, thanks. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 21:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your edit at Gliophorus psittacinus and two others (diff). That used {{Conv|4|cm}} where Template:Conv is a redirect to Template:Convert. I'm hoping that in the future you will write that as {{convert|4|cm}}.

There are several shortcut template redirects that are useful because the shortcut is much shorter than the full template name which is sometimes cumbersome. However, using conv rather than convert gives a trivial saving, and using the abbreviation causes confusion for people who are familiar with convert but who may not have seen conv—they wonder what conv is, and whether it is different from convert or has some advantage.

If you wanted convert to use unit symbols rather than names (abbr=on), you might like to use {{cvt}} which is a widely used shortcut for convert with the feature that cvt always abbreviates units (it sets abbr=on). For example:

• {{convert|4|cm}} → 4 centimetres (1.6 in)
• {{cvt|4|cm}} → 4 cm (1.6 in)

Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Reply

 

Hello, UpdateNerd. You have new messages at Talk:Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am trying to understand an edit summary you wrote when reverting/altering a contribution. You wrote "nothing, not even the deed, uses the same name as 1999 NYT obituary." Is the name you're referring to "Cerebral Palsy Foundation of New York and New Jersey"? If so, there is no confusion about which building was given (there was just one) or who owned it (Fred) but what to call the recipient. There is not and never was such a thing as the "Cerebral Palsy Foundation of New York and New Jersey."

From what I can glean, the "United Cerebral Palsy" [UCP], founded in 1949, has spawned a confusing array of charities. One of these, formed in 1955, with more or less separate governance, was the "United Cerebral Palsy Research and Education Foundation" [UCPREF]. This was the recipient of the gift. In 1982, the NYT reported on the gift of one of the "Trump Organization's apartment buildings" to UCPREF:

"[Donald] Trump, who is on the board of United Cerebral Palsy's Research and Education Foundation, needed no more prompting. 'I decided then and there,' he said, 'to make a gift of the building.' On Wednesday the transfer was completed and yesterday officials of the charitable foundation said it represented the largest single gift ever made to the 33-year-old organization."

Here, the NYT played into the naming confusion, but clearly the gift was to the "foundation," UCPREF. Buzzfeed's reporting is consistent with this:

"The deed lists 'Fred C. Trump and Mary Trump' as the donors of building. The building, donated to United Cerebral Palsy's Research and Education Foundation in 1982, had a reported value of $4.75 million. BuzzFeed News obtained the deed for the building by matching housing records with media reports about the donation."

Buzzfeed notes "longtime Queens Rep. Gary Ackerman also credited Fred Trump in a speech on the House floor in 1989." Here is the relevant portion of the Congressional Record, where he associates the gift with UCP (https://www.congress.gov/101/crecb/1989/11/21/GPO-CRECB-1989-pt22-1-3.pdf):

"Fred C. Trump, the patriarch of the Trump Organization, the famed New York real estate company, is active on the board of directors of Jamaica Hospital and the Kew-Forest School. His major philanthropic gifts include a nursing pavilion to the Jamaica Hospital, an apartment building for United Cerebral Palsy, and a synagogue to a Brooklyn community. He is the recipient of innumerable awards and honors from major religious groups and charitable organizations."

In any event, the NYT obituary was wrong to refer to the "Cerebral Palsy Foundation of New York and New Jersey." This entity appears nowhere else in ProQuest or Lexis/Nexis. All internet mentions also trace directly to the mistaken NYT obituary. The "Cerebral Palsy Foundation" [CPF] traces its history to UCP via UCPREF (See https://www.yourcpf.org/history/). UCP has local affiliates (eg, New York and New Jersey) but CPF does not. Nor is CPF a simple renaming of UCPREF. Yet another charity, "Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation," claims that distinction (see https://cpfamilynetwork.org/resources/resources-guide/cerebral-palsy-international-research-foundation/).

If we want to be fastidious, I propose we correct the name of the charity to "United Cerebral Palsy Research and Education Foundation," citing Buzzfeed and 1982 NYT article.

As to whether Donald took credit, clearly he did so in the 1982 article. In 1984, the NYT gave him credit again:

"Ivana Trump, her husband's business partner and decorator for his projects, has long been associated with United Cerebral Palsy, running its annual gambling night and raising thousands of dollars. When the agency needed offices, the Trumps donated a building said to be worth $4 million."

In the 1987 Donahue interview, Donald clearly took credit again.

Shall we say "repeatedly took credit" or simply "took credit" rather than "frequently"?

Unendin (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Unendin: until a secondary source repeats your claim that there is no such thing as the Cerebral Palsy Foundation of New York and New Jersey, this would constitute WP:OR. That's why I attributed the claim that these are the same buildings to the article that said so. The NYT obituary may well be erroneous, but a WP:RS needs to clear up the confusion, not editors on Wikipedia. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Both the NYT's contemporaneous account and Buzzfeed's relatively careful reporting (with deed and all) are reliable secondary sources establishing that Fred Trump gave a building to United Cerebral Palsy Research & Education Foundation. Why go with the NYT obituary, which covers a lot of ground in no particular detail? Unendin (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Unendin: agreed and fixed. The NYT obituary was throwing things off. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bless you. I was pulling out my hair -- not because of you, but because of the mess of names around cerebral palsy charities. One semi-secondary source, the annual IRS list of charities, helps establish the existence of "United Cerebral Palsy Research & Education Foundation" in 1982 and 1999 and the non-existence of the other. Anyway, glad we're suitably skeptical of the NYT obituary's usage. BTW, very pleased with your curation of this page. I maintain a large corpus of words by and about Trumpdom. It's not my intention to break the rule against WP:OR but I'm fairly new to serious Wikipedia editing. Unendin (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

First, thank you for cleaning up my cursory edit concerning how Joseph Campbell met John Steinbeck and his wife, Carol. I had never edited a Wikipedia page before and thought one had to have an account, but when I clicked on "Edit", it let me. So I tried not to screw anything up.  :-) So, thanks again!

Second, I've done some further research and you may (if you wish) further correct the entry by doing away with any mention of an alternate account of how Campbell was introduced to the Steinbecks. There really is no alternate account. I suspect the original author of the Wikipedia article somehow got Adelle and Idell confused.

I first learned about the Campbell/Steinbeck interaction from William Souder's new biography of Steinbeck (which you cited correctly). Intrigued, being both a Steinbeck and Campbell fan, I had to look up Campbell on Wikipedia and saw what looked like an error in how Campbell was introduced to John and Carol - hence "an alternate account". Page 120 of Souder's biography clearly states that it was Carol's sister, Idell, who introduced them. Looking further into this, Souder's notes for page 120 includes a reference to an interview in 1983 between Campbell and Pauline Pearson. He also references the Larsen & Larsen biography of Campbell, p. 165. So, I checked out the Larsen & Larsen Campbell biography from our library and found on p. 165 this quote attributed to Campbell: "Her sister [referring to Idell's sister, Carol] had married a chap who wanted to write, and I was wanting to write, and we might enjoy each other. So she brought me down and introduced me to Carol and John Steinbeck at their place in Pacific Grove." The quote had a footnote which Larsen & Larsen state is a quote (among a number of others) taken from transcripts of an interview with Campbell conducted by Pauline Pearson of the Salinas [CA] Public Library.

I think Campbell's own words makes it pretty clear who introduced him to the Steinbeck's. Although Campbell and Adelle Davis did continue to have interactions with each other. And Adelle did visit Campbell while he was living near the Steinbeck's - possibly further confusing the original Wikipedia article's author.

Thanks again! - Larry (lnelson@illinois.edu) And now I guess I need to enter 4 tildes (whatever that does). 2601:240:8480:5AE0:9421:EDBE:352A:7869 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@2601:240:8480:5AE0:9421:EDBE:352A:7869: Wow! Fantastic sleuthing. I was curious about what was going on with this, but hadn't had time to do the reading. Welcome to Wikipedia; you're off to a great start!

Putting 4 tildes at the end of your comment automatically inserts your signature. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Star Wars (2013 comic book), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful when copy editing cited sentences in relation to what the cited sources state and their context. See [9] here in Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) and here [10] in Alleged doubles of Adolf Hitler. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: Will do, thanks. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You recently reverted my additions to the metadata for one of the newish full-color Fred Trump pix. I looked into it a bit more and wrote up some findings on the Fred Trump talk page. We can be more specific than "Trump in the 80s." Tell me what you think. Unendin (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please remember this is and has been a well vetted GA rated article. There is very, very little that would need to be changed or added at this point in time. Continuous tweaking of it really is not the best use of time, when there are so many other articles that are only stubs or start class or are in need of WP:RS citing for conformation. So, please keep this in mind. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: I think the last edit I made is about the last foreseeable change I can think of. I don't think putting a forensic detail into words is unnecessary verbiage, but as you mentioned the detail can be gathered from clicking on the image. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I wasn't sure if the notification came through, but I'd pinged you on the Star Wars sequel trilogy talk page to discuss starting a re-write of the Reception section. Apologies if you've just been busy and had planned to respond soon. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if your edit was about the citation missing from the last sentence, or a DUEness comment. If it's the latter, I don't dispute the tag, I'm not sure that an instagram post is relevant either. SmolBrane (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SmolBrane: It was for both. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say thank you for putting a much better image in the infobox :) Граймс (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm quite concerned that this "official" version of Hitler's proposed means of death ignores SO many facts produced by evidence-based experts, including forner-CIA agent, Bob Baer. I agree that many conspiracy theorists come to the same conclusion without corroboration, but ignoring all alternatives prevents people from deciding what they believe. 131.106.252.170 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what this is about since you didn't say which article you were reading. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding information about S. ascendens to the article. I'm doing a few tweaks, but the info and source are good. Appreciate it! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

John B123 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, UpdateNerd! I don't know if we've crossed paths before, but my name is Gen. Quon; I work mostly on articles about TV shows, and right now, I'm also working on my PhD dissertation in library science. My project is looking at the information behaviors of fan editors (here's a more detailed overview of my project, if you'd like to read more about it). I've been reaching out to Wikipedia editors who I think might have some interesting things to say, and given your varied interest in pop culture, I was wondering if you'd be willing to chatt with me about your information experiences here on Wikipedia? The questions I'm asking will be stuff like "where do you get your info", "how do you know if that info is 'right'?", etc. If you're curious, I'm more than happy to send over additional details through Wikipedia's email tool, if you'd like.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 17:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @Gen. Quon: Hi, so sorry for the long delay. If you still need something like this let me know. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

• No worries--thanks for the response! If you're interested, I'd be willing to send you some questions via Wikipedia's email function! Would that be a possibility?--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 12:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @Gen. Quon: Sounds good, please go ahead! UpdateNerd (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Excellent! The email should be sent.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 17:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is not of interest that Columbus thought thus, it is ludicrous and ludicrous does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

How does one bring this to talk?? I am new at this sometimes arcane software. Secondly, .0001% is .0001%, very difficult to do in 1492. And my backyard was not meant literally.

~~

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff: You go to the Talk tab on the article and start a 'New section'. I understand you were being figurative, but your interpretation of something being impossible because it happened long ago doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is built on sourced info, not necessarily what's "factual"; you need to provide sources if you think something is inaccurately represented. (Also, it's four tildes to sign talk page comments.) UpdateNerd (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It IS impossible. Columbus bobbing around in the middle of the Atlantic with a plumb bob on a string is not going to discover a one part in a million deviation in the Earth's figure. Period. Not possible. My reference is mathematics and knowledge. The cited reference is mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff: I respect that you think so, but you miss my main point about Wikipedia editing. Per WP:OR, you'd need to source such a view before implementing an edit based on it. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

How do you reference scientific common sense? He COULD not do it. Period. Can you accurately measure the height of the Burj Kalifa to the accuracy of the width of a hair, using a ruler?? No. You could not claim that you could. It is not possible. Common scientific sense. Maybe you should prove how he could claim this effect with the statement "regularly saw the plumb line fall to the same point". Explain how this observation leads to a pear shaped Earth?? Explain the quote and how it shows a pear shaped Earth. Indeed, explain this quote, I have zero idea of what it is trying to explain, it makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff: I didn't "reference scientific common sense" and explaining what or how Christopher Columbus thought he observed isn't my job. I encourage you to look for more information via various available resources, for instance The Wikipedia Library. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is your job to make Wikipedia accurate and true. It is not your job to let little motes of BS continue to live on it. I'll put the dots closer together.

Columbus wrote down some completely, totally unjustified comment about the earth being pear shaped. Totally off the wall for his knowledge at the time, total BS Some guy writing a modern book comes across this writing and says "Hey, look, Columbus was a smart cookie, back in 1492 with no equipment he reported an observation that the earth is pear-shaped" Coincidentally, it is, at a ppm level that could not be detected until the 20th century. Some other . . . . person . . . . cites this wacko information in a Wikipedia article I point out that the original information is flawed(since it is), then I'm told I have to prove the erroneous, BS, stupid citation as wrong. Which can't be done. I can't refute the quote, it exists, even though it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you just added a reference for the use of willow as a painkiller (for sore throats) by native americans (Arno, Stephen F.; Hammerly, Ramona P. (2020) [1977]. Northwest Trees: Identifying & Understanding the Region's Native Trees. Mountaineers Books. pp. 193–196.) It's not available online but, if you have a copy, would you mind letting me know whether it has genuine evidence of this, in your opinion? I've never come across any convincing reference to willow being a painkiller before the invention of aspirin. Thank you E Wusk (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@E Wusk: Yes indeed! On page 195 it says: "Several references mention chewing willow bark as an analgesic for headache and other pain, apparently presaging the development of aspirin in the late 1800s, which was derived from a substance (salicin) in the willow." This directly follows Arno et al. saying the compendium of Moerman (1998) "cites nine pages of specific uses of willow by North American tribes." Hope that helps! Keep up the diligent work :) UpdateNerd (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. So we're looking at recent comments claiming "several references" but no actual sources that can be traced. And compromised by an opinion about willow effectively containing aspirin (people believe this, so they don't question anything which confirms it). This is why I added the quotes from Ebers Papyrus etc., because when I traced the originals they said nothing of the sort. E Wusk (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@E Wusk: Yeah, nothing specific that I can see at a glance. I think this could be said with attribution ("one field guide says" or something of the sort), and perhaps a direct quote. You're more familiar with the topic than I, so you'd have a better idea if such sources exist. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think what you've written is fair enough under Wikipedia rules. I tracked down a previous version of Moerman's opus on the Internet Archive, and the intro is contaminated by a piece which explains that the native Americans knew all about aspirin before it was invented, and even explains how salicin works the same as aspirin. You've written up what people say and believe, which is the aim of the encyclopedia. I doubt that it is true, but this probably isn't the place for such an argument. I wonder if the aspirin story deserves its own page, like Flat Earth or Satanic panic... E Wusk (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@E Wusk: I've made a change to reflect this. Feel free to improve however you think possible. And, exactly, WP is representation of sources, not absolute truth; if only more people realized that... Also, thanks for linking Satanic panic; I didn't know such an article existed! UpdateNerd (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that as a quote, it is irrefutable. Readers can make up their own minds about its veracity. My only quibble is that, coming before the Sumerians in the account, it looks a bit like this pre-dates the other accounts. In fact, the ethnobotanical studies seem to date from the 1980s or 1990s, and I am sure plenty of people were using willow for that purpose by then. You can buy all sorts of tinctures now. Speaking of which, the account doesn't really have anything on modern herbal uses, so maybe that's a bit of an omission. E Wusk (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@E Wusk: Good point. I've edited it to show that this is a modern assertion rather than a proven historical fact. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! E Wusk (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi UpdateNerd, I hope you're doing well in these perilous times (all times are perilous;-). I meant to ask you about this earlier, but I've been busy with a real-world project. I'm puzzled by this edit, where your summary says "clarifying poor pagination to avoid any future wild-goose chase". You wrote "(5)" after the parameter value page=xxxix with "!-- part of preface numbering --" in a hidden note. I don't get it, because "xxxix" is how you write the number "39" in Roman numerals; "x" = 10 and "ix" = 9, so three x's and one ix added together is 39, not 5. It's very common to paginate the pages in book prefaces that way. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Carlstak: Quite! This is indeed a "minor point", but worth acknowledging. Google considers this page 'xxxix', which is 100% logical. However, "5" is printed on the page. That's what I meant about "poor pagination"; this has multiple times caused me to go on a "wild-goose chase" (e.g., checking to find out if 5 is the correct page, when in fact the book's creators opted to use Arabic numerals for part of the preface, in addition to Roman numerals, before resetting the Arabic numerals to "1" for the proper first chapter). All of the time I've dedicated to this (surely unintended) fucking nonsense could have been spent looking for a better source and thus actually learning. Pardon my anger. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. Haha, can't believe I missed the "5" on the page. Guess I was in too much of a fucking hurry.;-) I must say, though, that Kathleen A. Deagan and José Cruxent are unimpeachable sources, at least concerning archaeology. Deagan's students used to stop by our house where we were building a sunken garden and look at the majolica pottery and other artifacts we dug up and identify them. Then we'd see them up at the Milltop getting drunk on many pitchers of draft with Dr. Deagan (the drinking age was 18 then). Good times. Carlstak (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Carlstak: The work itself seems good to me. :) I only meant that it was troublesome because of the weird page number issue, which wouldn't be so irksome if I had the physical copy (instead of being limited to Google's snippet view—with its own variable choice of URL page coding, eg. PA01, PG01, PT01, etc.). Cool anecdote. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Odd, I get the full page view, but I'm signed in to Google. They are evil, so I have my browser set up to clear active logins and cookies when I close it, and I only sign in to Google on my phone when I need to update apps from the playstore. Deagan is a national treasure; she's incredibly prolific and has trained generations of archaeologists. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello UpdateNerd, It seems that we are in a sort of edit war about Columbus' second wife Beatriz Enriquez de Arana. Your first revert was all well and good, you provided a source that you believed refuted my claim that she was his second wife. But your second revert was just because I made a mistake in explaining myself in my edit summary. I do not believe that that is a just reason to revert the changes I have made, especially when I have provided numerous sources to show that she was in fact Columbus' wife after the death of his first. I even included a primary source of Columbus himself referring to her as his wife. I intend to revert the changes you have made but first I would just like to ask for your side of things and hope you can provide me with sources that can disprove my own. The sources that dealt with Beatriz Enriquez' relationship with Columbus that were on this page before I edited it were 1. The OPINION of the author with no primary sources in the case of Davidson, 2. Wildly misrepresenting the authors views and having no reason to be included (in the case of J.J. Barry whose biography on Columbus I have read where he makes a strong case that she was his second wife -- not his mistress) 3. Secondary sources simply stating she was his mistress with no explanation as to why that position was taken. My references, as I have explained, deal with the controversy explicitly, are primary sources (from Columbus himself) or are secondary sources as with Herrera (who was a contemporary of Ferdinand Columbus). For these reasons I believe my changes are correct. It may be worthwhile to explain that there is a controversy in the page itself, so people can research further, rather than just stating Beatriz was or was not his wife authoritatively. I hope for your response, thank you. P.S. this is my first time using the talk page so I hope I did this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayolcold (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Crayolcold: Hi! Firstly, we're not in an edit war; I'm undecided as to the correct outcome and the discussion happens to be very interesting! So thanks for raising the issue. The second revert I made was due to WP:BRD, not necessarily because I think you're wrong. Whenever there's a dispute, discussions should take place on the talk page so an editorial consensus can be reached without edit-warring. The default is to revert to the long-standing status quo until a new consensus can be found. I agree with your suggestion that we should probably mention the controversy explicitly, or at least not state Columbus's relationship with Beatriz Enriquez authoritatively, if that's what the sources dictate. I haven't looked into the counter-arguments made against Davidson's view that their marriage has been historically been claimed without substantiation. Either way, Columbus himself is an unreliable primary source. (See WP:PSTS.) Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the article, The Death of Adolf Hitler, it stated, "Both Kempka and Musmanno wrote that Hitler shot himself through the mouth and that SS physician Ludwig Stumpfegger inspected the body. Cited to Joachimsthaler, 2000, p. 165 and Musmanno, 1950, p. 219. Joachimsthaler on that page does not state that, and Kempka does not write that in his autobiography. So what does Musmanno write specifically? When you put it back in you wrote, "...mentioning Kempka again because he appears to be Musmanno's source on this." That is vague and ambiguous. If he is clearly the source, per Musmanno, okay, but if it is vague or not clear, it needs to be removed, accordingly. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: Thanks for following up on this. Joachimsthaler p. 164 says Kempka wrote the shot-in-the-mouth version, and p. 165 says Kempka wrote that Stumpfegger "came in to make an examination". I added the missing page number. Musmanno doesn't cite his source for this, but Kempka is the only eyewitness I know of that mentions Stumpfegger in that regard. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Kempka has always been known as a poor source as to the method of Hitler's suicide and the events, immediately afterwards. As you know, Kempka later admitted he was not present at the time of the suicide of AH. He came over after Günsche had telephoned and told him to obtain as much petrol as he could (from the parked vehicles) and bring it to the emergency exit bunker. Kempka and his men then brought over eight to ten army petrol cans, which had an estimated 180 to 200 litres of petrol and deposited them. I knew Joachimsthaler did not write that on the page cited, so I am glad you fixed that error. Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

UpdateNerd: Since you wrote this content and apparently have the book, I would ask that you (copy edit) tweak the wording of these two sections. The one states:

• Content

"Bezymenski's book begins with a 66-page overview of the Battle of Berlin and its aftermath..."

• The Death of Adolf Hitler

"Bezymenski opens his book with a reflection on the weight given to Hitler's death..."

This may be confusing to the general reader. Also, remember it is always good to make edits for concision, when possible, as we want article's to be easily readable (and not take a long time to load) for the general audience for which we write, especially on mobile devices. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sphilbrick: This was an attributed quote intended to expand knowledge of the subject. I trimmed out extraneous wordage not relevant to Merkin or his most-well-known work, his appearance on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's. No infringement intended or implied. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's my opinion that the quote was far longer than is generally accepted. Happy to get others views, but in my opinion 193 words is well over what is generally accepted. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I could not find a RS cite for these sentences (and comment): At the Nuremberg trials, Kempka was called to testify in relation to the last time he saw Bormann. He later referred to Eva Braun as "the unhappiest woman in Germany". If you can find a good RS cite for it, either let me know and I will re-add or just re-add these sentences with the cite. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have you been able to find anything on this? Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: Sounds interesting; I've neglected to reply because I wanted to look into it. So far, haven't found time, but maybe will get around to it. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a sure source of future edit warring is to spell the dimension as "metre" rather than "meter" in a US-related article. Experience suggests that for commonality and to avoid disputes, it's better to abbreviate mm, cm, m, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: Thanks, I'll look out for that on US-dominant articles. (I wish it could be more automated as UK-spelling is the default of the convert template, and I think leaving the first instance spelled out has benefits.) UpdateNerd (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, "metre" is the SI spelling, not just the UK one, which is why it's the default, I think. The problem with spelling out "meter" in US-related articles is that there are editors around who will change it to "metre" with the rationale that it's is an SI unit and that's how it's spelt and how our articles are titled. You can link the abbreviation at first occurrence to the articles (metre, centimetre, etc.). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Peter coxhead: Yes, it's confounding that the US both has its own standard of measurement and spells SI names its own way (but that doesn't bother me). I've been defaulting to SI spelling whenever a species appears outside the US, but will cut back. More established articles should have their preferred conventions, erm, spelled out. Is there a good reason to link units? Edit: Oh, I assume you mean when abbreviating them to avoid the issue of spelling conventions. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, yes, I meant that instead of spelling out the first instance as you suggested above, you could wikilink it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find that at [11] Doug Weller talk 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: That's a general reference for the mustache being associated with Hitler from WWII on. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

So it can't be used on Fred Trump's article as it doesn't mention him. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: Sure it can, as a source for the claim that the mustache became widely unfashionable by 1945 due to its association with Hitler. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I'm getting this backwards. Yes, Rich Cohen is a good source. But where are your sources saying he wore a toothbrush moustache? All I see is articles by Trump and a photo, but interpreting a photo like that in conjunction with Cohen's article, that looks like original research to me. Surely you can find sources directly backing the statement? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: You literally just mean a source saying Fred Trump had a moustache in the toothbrush style? I don't see why that would be necessary with multiple photos, substantiated by the one being published with an article by Trump and others in the same newspaper (authenticating that were really his photos), including the clearer version in the article by family biographer Gwenda Blair (which matches the exact outline of the style worn by Charlie Chaplin in the main photo on the toothbrush moustache article). The moustache article links images for many notable wearers of the style (including Trump), with no need of sources specifically discussing the hair arrangements of the individuals. I'm aware of needs for secondary sources for many topics, like medical articles, but using primary sources isn't an issue for discussing specific historical details when secondary sources haven't apparently been published. But it's relevant enough to the section, backed with photos etc.; would be an issue if this were a WP:BLP but it's not. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The photo is a lot clearer in Blair's article. And as it's not a BLP... Looks like he had one in 1950, not just late 40s. I wish there was a better photo of it as the photo in that section isn't a toothbrush moustache and it would look better if it were. Thanks for explaining this to me in such detail. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: No problem! The photograph was first published in 1950 (along with very similar ones from that year), making it safe to say they were taken c. 1949 at earliest. Much earlier is doubtful because he looked so much different in 1940 (though he also wore the 'brush then); otherwise the wording could be changed to "published in 1950". I agree it'd be nice to see that photo in the section discussing it, but the linked toothbrush article features it, and the reader would already have two chances to see photos of him with the style by this point in the FT article. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. Don’t want to start a new thread, but do you think that “the continent” might be confusing? Maybe “what was thou to be one contin”? The whole Vespucci thing is fascinating, I didn’t realise how dubious his claims were. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what happened there, but you know what I meant. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: Agreed and fixed. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks. I hope I'm not being a pain and sorry for the typos, hate using an iPad to edit. I see we have some of the same articles on our watchlists. I've done mine down tremendously after being diagnosed with cancer - bowel and liver. Bowel cancer removed, now halfway through chemo. My Parkinson's caused a fall which broke my ribs, a scan for possible punctures revealed the cancer. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: No problem about the occasional typo, especially just on talk pages :) I've recognized your name around some of those articles; I appreciate the collaborative effort on those more frequently visited and vandalized ones. Congrats on the progress you've gone through regarding treatment so far, and all the best going forward! Best, UpdateNerd (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated. To keep going forward at almost 80 with Parkinson's, I'm getting a good treadmill so that I can walk no matter the heat, ice or rain. I cannot stand the heat and the rest is unsafe. That will help keep up my exercise and I think I can stand straighter on a treadmill then walking, although I will walk whenever I can. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That’s great! I'm a bit younger but also try to keep a solid aerobic regimen. Walking & cycling. I find doing the real thing always beats equipment, but that’s partly because the breeze helps me cool off. (Also sensitive to heat since getting more into exercise.) Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: ping – UpdateNerd (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I like walking. Sadly I can no longer walk as long or as fast as my wife, who walks our two miniature poodles in some fields and woods very nearby. So I'm more or less confined to sidewalks and have to carry a mask to keep safe (carry, only wear when I need to). No need to ping, I'm subscribed to this thread. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Most important is that you keep walking! I've also switched to no longer wearing a mask (spending most of my time away from home outdoors) – only bring one with me when asked of a business to do so. Btw, to clarify my age, I'm old enough to be president but younger than the current one ;) UpdateNerd (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

"In 1960, Günsche said both were on chairs." To whom did he reportedly make this statement and where was it reported? I have not found it anywhere else and, as you know, one cannot take what Bezymenski wrote in his Soviet propaganda book at face valve. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: He simply mentions their (Soviet) depositions, without going into detail. I think adding the word "reportedly" would make this more objective. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, of course, since Günsche was released from captivity on 2 May 1956, he would have to had made the statement before 1960; the claim is very suspect. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: Oh, confusion on my part. The 1950 statement would have been during Soviet captivity, but as you point out, he was released in 1956. So I'm not sure when or where the latter statement was made. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Well given he and Linge were tortured during imprisonment, it would be no big surprise if he had said something to that effect during captivity, but it is still highly suspect. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I did some ce work and edits for concision to this article as we agreed that this article should only be about the book in question (and the critique, criticism of same); not live or redundant events. Those are better suited for the newer article you did discussing Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death. Otherwise, there is a content fork problem and so much detail as to the preceding events is not relevant. As for the subsequent article mentioned, there is too much detail of Bezymenski's book therein that is redundant and covered in the book article. Again, this second article should cover main points (and criticism) of the book with a link to its article page. But, for now, I leave it to you to make edits on that for concision as I have to go. Kierzek (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kierzek: Yep, basically agree. Thanks for the good-faith attempt to see eye-to-eye & for your contributions. I'll also of course keep making further refinements to distinguish the articles. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death 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/Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death 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 until the discussion has finished.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's important to give the full context as without it makes him look like he doesn't think he, the artist, has the right to do as he pleases with his work. He's saying corporations and other entities besides the original artist shouldn't have the final say but without the full context this gets loss and it repeats the cycle of what was he thinking with the changes and film preservation in general. Joe12Hawk (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

What he was thinking** Joe12Hawk (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Joe12Hawk: You may have a point but there are guidelines on how to implement challenged content such as WP:BRD. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It should only be giving factual context and detail. That's the bare minimum. Anything less than that isn't really correct and feeds into the false narratives surrounding George Lucas and beyond. It sets a dangerous path. We should update it accordingly and let others see what he actually said instead of censoring the truth behind select words from his statement. Joe12Hawk (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please get consensus on the talk page for that article before re-implementing related changes. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply