User talk:Tserton: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:45, 1 April 2021

Welcome!

Hello, Tserton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chincoteague-high-pony.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chincoteague-high-pony.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Chincoteague-high-pony.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chincoteague-high-pony.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Wiki'ed {{sections}}

I just wanted to let you know that I edited your sandbox. I no wiki'ed the {{sections}} template. Whenever this template is placed on a page, it is categorized. I am trying to remove the backlog in this category, so your page is one less page in the category. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks and good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chincoteague-high-pony.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chincoteague-high-pony.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jameswood.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jameswood.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fhchs.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fhchs.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tserton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt

Since much of its content is user-edited, Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't know that, so thanks for letting me know. Cheers. --Tserton (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luc Nkulula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germans

Just to share. Since this has nothing to do with improving the article, I post it here: Thanks for starting the discussion at Ethnic groups. Although it has become sour, I think it worth while. This morning, I read your words "making some group of people feel bad ...", then went to class where by coincidence a student with Turkish background told how she had been discriminated against by some teachers in primary school. Students without any migration background who knew those teachers confirmed what she said. That is part of my motivation to persevere and to stay calm. Although I have this motivation, I still want my edits to be neutral and agree with you (once again !) that "Wikipedia should describe the world as it is". --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400:Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for the work you do educating young people. I myself grew up as an immigrant in a different culture than my parents', and without dedicated teachers who took the challenges I faced seriously, I would have found it impossible to thrive. I was lucky enough to grow up in an environment where my dual identity was well accepted and I experienced very little "othering". So I was a little dismayed at the anachronistic way many of these topics are addressed on Wikipedia, and it was a big motivation to become more active in the community. But at the same time, I am mindful that we have to base our arguments and decisions in evidence, not simply things I perceive as "common knowledge" - because that's the only way to update outdated articles or wording when there is much resistance against doing so. I still intend to see the discussion through until we come to a final decision. Stay safe in the real world! --Tserton (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your new ideas to solve the problem at Germans and for your encouraging words above. Another coincidence: The classroom discussion I mentioned above followed a presentation by a student on Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in which she mentioned Ugur Sahin as an example of success made possible by people's willingness to accept cultural differences. I saw that you were working on his article and was thinking that racism might have prevented us from getting a vaccine. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the latest comments at Talk:Germans. Still a bit shocked. I plan to take it to WP:DRN, but first I need to cool down a bit. Do you have any better idea ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might eventually come to that and I've considered it as well. I've never been involved in dispute resolution, but I think we should absolutely exhaust all attempts at consensus first, and it's definitely a good idea to let things calm down and let people have their say. The Rfc also needs to be closed first ("We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.") I think that most of the editors in the debate are open to finding a solution - only 2-3 seem to be against any sort of compromise. But yeah, it's quite likely some sort of dispute resolution or even arbitration will be necessary, if edit warring persists once the Rfc (and the debate around it) concludes. --Tserton (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turks in Germany dispute

Hi Tserton, could you weigh in on this discussion[1] so we can reach consensus? I see you are one of the more active editors on this article so it would be much appreciated. Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an experienced moderator can I ask for your advice? Sseevv keeps editing the contested sections of the article without anyone agreeing to it. This keeps muddying the waters by continually changing what was under debate before we have reached a resolution, I asked why he kept doing this earlier in the discussion but got no response and he did it again. I just asked him to stop again. He also accused me (and others) of sock puppeting and before that Vandalism, and reverted another user (not me) who tried to change those sections since, the other user received a warning but Ssevv didnt. He also removed the sources I had added originally entirely, which I would be fine with if it was just to wait for a consensus first but he also done countless edits since early December. His behaviour is mentioned in examples of disruptive editing,[2] points 1, 2, 4 and 5 apply to his behavior. However I didn't find a noticeboard for disruptive editing, and the incidents noticeboard has no option for reporting it. Is this acceptable behavior? How should I proceed? Will Tyson for real (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I'm not a moderator, and Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. Your words carry just as much weight as mine and anyone else's (except those of administrators in certain very specific situations).

You're correct that it's considered good practice not to carry out disputed edits while the discussion is in progress, but this isn't a hard-and-fast policy, since bold editing is important to Wikipedia. If you feel a certain edit is strongly contentious, revert it. Given that this is a specific dispute largely between two users, you might try dispute resolution - but be aware that this is a form of mediation, not discipline.

You can also make a Request for Comment (RfC), but you'll have to formulate a very specific question that people can respond to - not many editors will be willing to read through the entire thread to figure out what's going on (as I said, I'm having trouble pinpointing the substance of the dispute myself). If the subject of the dispute is appropriate for an RfC, I can help set one up if you'd like (although you shouldn't be afraid of trying it yourself - just read up on the documentation). --Tserton (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: don't pay attention to editors bandying accusations of sock-puppeting or vandalism on talk pages. More often than not, they undermine their own credibility when they do so, and the only place where such words have any real meaning is at the appropriate noticeboards. --Tserton (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, I posted another response actually attempting to summarize the disagreement and I just now saw your response here, honest to god coincidence. And my mistake, I meant the same thing as administrator when I said moderator. If I do go foreword with submitting a request for comment I suppose I would narrow it down to the question of whether its appropriate to have political speech's and embassy estimates when more academic sources are available. As I stated in my most recent comment on the relevant talkpage everything else was just supporting arguments by comparison. My main fear about reverting Sseevv is being accused of edit warring, which wouldn't entirely be wrong if I reverted him more than three times (I already did so twice in early December), even though he basically bullied me off the article, which is why I've tried to argue these points with him on the talkpage. Thanks again. Will Tyson for real (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Tyson for real:Just to clarify further: I'm also not an admin. Just a bog-standard user like you haha. Anyway, just wanted to say that dealing with editors you find unconstructive is usually a thankless task, since backing down in an edit war means unprincipled users can temporarily "hijack" an article. But it's often the easiest way to move forward - the debate will go on and find a resolution based on the facts, and the edits reverted if it's called for. And you won't be steamrollered even when you're in the minority - your participation on the talk page will be reflected in whatever consensus ends up being hammered out. Only when deciding between mutually exclusive options are people ever "overruled," and then usually only by overwhelming consensus. Anyway, I hope you aren't put off editing Wikipedia and continue to volunteer. --Tserton (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lai Đại Hàn on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for "Germans"

Only to vent my frustration at the delay of the closure: The date (2031) in your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups reminded me of an old friend who jokingly told me that she will get the vaccination in 2026. BTW: She has at least two ethnicities, while her children have three: Basque, Spanish, German.

Just in case it becomes necessary, should we write a summary for WP:DRN together ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volt edits / Dutch election threshold

Just a heads-up: Dutch threshold is getting the minimum for a seat, which has a different percentage in EU setting and in national setting. In national elections that's about 0.7%. Your calculation in the edit comment is probably about correct. --LaPingvino (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More on the ethnic group pages

Hi Tserton, I thoroughly support what you have done and tried to do for the above. I've tried recently to edit the 'English People' page. After making some quite major edits I've backed down and have simply tried to include a version of one of the Wikiproject (Ethnic Groups) piece of text, i.e.:

This article covers the <GROUP> as an ethnic group, not <GROUP> meaning citizens of <COUNTRY>

Strictly speaking there are no citizens of England so the version I have ended up suggesting is:

This article is about English people as an ethnic group, not English people meaning inhabitants of England.

My key argument is that this brings the WP article into closer accord with the OED definition of the adjective 'English', which is:

'Of or belonging to England (or Britain) or its inhabitants.' The OED adds 'In early use sometimes spec[ifically]. designating inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, in contradistinction to those of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent.'

The insistence on focusing solely on something resembling (according to the OED) the non-current usage to the exclusion of the current usage, I find difficult to understand. I have laid my argument out (admittedly belatedly) on the talk page but I'm not sure if there will be any response and suspect that any further edits will just get reverted without backup or by claiming the more succinct statement is better, simply because it is more succinct. If you are able to offer any advice on how to proceed with this I would really appreciate it, even if it's just to say that I have gone about this in the wrong way and would do better to now leave it.