User talk:Voidxor

Question from Rnoelgreene on Richard Greene (politician) (10:46, 8 August 2023)

The information about me and the Irish National Congress is not accurate. I have tried to edit proper and truthful information and seems to me you won't publish the truth.The foundational meeting of the Irish National Congress took place on September 9th 1989 in Buswell's Hotel,Dublin where I persuaded all factions of the Republican movement including Gerry Adams,members of the O'Bradaigh family and many others to stop the internecine killings, mayhem and atrocities in the six counties at that time.It seems you either don't want this meeting publicised,but by not you are giving false information about the Irish National Congress and how it came about and why it came about and was founded for.Richard Greene --Rnoelgreene (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Rnoelgreene on Richard Greene (politician) (22:21, 8 August 2023)

I am trying to correct misinformation in Richard Greene (Politician)about the Founding of the Irish National Congress which occurred on September 9th 1989 which was attended by about 100 people, was filmed,journalists present and yet each time I edit and correct misinformation or information that should be there,it disappears.Why? --Rnoelgreene (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rnoelgreene: Okay, now I can see your edits, but they have been reverted multiple times due to lacking citation and violating the COI policy, which is happening for obvious reasons in this case. I realize this is frustrating to you, but we do have processes in place meant to curb vandalism and misinformation and I think you are running into those. Let me look into the situation so that I can help you to remove the misinformation at least.

There's really no reason to keep leaving repeated messages on my user talk page at the moment. I'm investigating the situation and will let you know within the hour. But, these are internal Wikipedia processes that need to play out. — voidxor 23:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've already had some of our policies and procedures explained to you on your user talk page. Please read those comments closely, as I was about to tell you much the same thing (as your assigned mentor on Wikipedia and as somebody with 18 years of editing experience here). Again, do not edit the article about yourself! Instead, make a request on that article's talk page.

There is no more reason to keep leaving messages about this issue on my user talk page. However, I will remain your assigned mentor and available for basic questions about editing other articles. I only check Wikipedia perhaps three times a week. — voidxor 00:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Rnoelgreene on User:Tacyarg (22:25, 9 August 2023)

I have repeatedly tried to correct misinformation or biased information on Richard Greene politician who is me.I am upfront about who I am but those who are replying to me are anonymous and seemed determined not allow me change or add new correct information to my Wikipedia as I am Richard Greene(politician) Richard Greene, Dublin Ireland. What is going here,is it censorship of the truth? --Rnoelgreene (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rnoelgreene: I've already replied to you above. Please stop leaving me messages about this. You've already been told here, on your user talk page that you are out of line with our policies by adding claims to an article without also providing suitable references. Please stop blaming others and stop doing the same thing over and over again, and instead actually read what we're telling you. Also, you cannot edit the article about yourself; you must leave a request on the article's talk page. — voidxor 23:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Rnoelgreene on Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/5 (11:41, 12 August 2023)

I have tried repeatedly to correct misinformation in a wikipedia about myself(Irish National Congress)but seem to be prevented from doing so. --Rnoelgreene (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Abbeymaguire (07:09, 16 August 2023)

hi, how do i publish a page thats in my sandbox? i have created a page but when i click publish it says not stash content found --Abbeymaguire (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abbeymaguire: Hi, Abbey, and a slightly belated "Welcome to Wikipedia"! Sorry for my delayed response. It looks like you've figured this out, though, by publishing Rozana Montiel and Julia Gamolina. Good work! If you need any further assistance, please reply here. See also Wikipedia:About the sandbox, and note that sandboxes a little different than draft articles (e.g. more freedom to experiment). — voidxor 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Norms

Hi Voidxor, I think you are trying to aggravate me by removing my content on Norms. It is incorrect and needs to be removed. Trevor Tmj1994 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tmj1994: Ah, so you can communicate! I've been reverting you and explaining why in my edit summaries for months. I've also left you multiple messages on your talk page.

I'm not trying to aggravate you (see also: our Assume Good Faith policy); I'm trying to defend an article from repeated unexplained removals of content. You need to leave edit summaries that explain your reasons, chiefly. We have guidelines on Wikipedia to keep things orderly, and please keep in mind that I have 18 years of experience editing here.

Now, to the issue of Norms Restaurants, what exactly is incorrect? For reference, here is your most recent edit. The fact that there are currently 21 locations is stated in the body of the article and correctly referenced. You are also removing the mentions of the restaurants all being in the Greater Los Angeles area and Southern California. Greater Los Angeles extends all the way out to Riverside per that article. How is saying that all restaurants are in Southern California incorrect? Have you looked at the referenced locator from Norms website?

Also, as I've said to you repeatedly, please quit removing the wiki syntax that looks like {{As of|2023|October}}; it's there for a reason to do with maintenance of the encyclopedia. — voidxor 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation param language=en

Hi, Voidxor, and thanks for your contribution to Zhurong (rover). Please note that you shouldn't remove parameter |language=en when you find it in a citation template. Saying it is only necessary for non-English sources is not quite right, because it isn't necessary for non-English sources either; in fact, no parameters are necessary and you can code the whole thing in plain text without a citation template at all, and still meet the WP:Verifiability standard. However, the citation template offers multiple benefits, one of which is providing structured metadata that is easily machine-readable; adding |language=en takes it one step further, and is helpful, not hurtful. That doesn't mean you have to have it, and I wouldn't normally bother adding it if it's not already there (although I sometimes do, when an English book has a foreign-sounding title, like, let's say, |title=Mein Kampf|language=en). But if it's already there, or if you feel like adding it, it has metadata benefits, and also improves verifiability for translators who pick up our English article and translate it into French, or whatever. So, if you see the |language=en params, please just leave them in place. Thanks again for your improvements to the encyclopedia! Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow. The whole "If XYZ isn't necessary, then ABC must not be necessary either!!" argument is one of the silliest red herrings I sometimes see around here. Grow up. And no, I'm not formatting citations as plain text.

Red herrings aside, see Template:Cite web for my reasoning. In the template list near the bottom, it says, "The language in which the source is written, if not English." After all, this is the English Wikipedia; English is the default. Furthermore, MOS:MARKUP says to omit unnecessary markup because it impedes editing and stands to confuse and discourage new editors. — voidxor 13:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've been unclear. I never said, nor meant to imply, that "If XYZ isn't necessary, then ABC must not be necessary"; I was trying to show a parallelism of user choice where multiple valid options are available. It is a fact of Wikipedia policy that the use of citation templates is in no way required to uphold WP:Verifiablity of content (plain text citations are just as valid); however, they may be used if desired. It is also a fact that when a citation template is used by choice, there is no requirement to use the |language= parameter; however, the parameter may be used if desired regardless of the source language. I hope that is clearer.

You're right about {{cite web}}, somebody added that to the TemplateData section, likely for the benefit of VE users, and that's their opinion, but just like anything on a Template doc page, it's just a bunch of helpful opinions by volunteer editors, neither a policy, nor a guideline. Follow it, if you find it helpful. (I wrote bits of it; hopefully they are both accurate, and helpful.) {{Cite book}} happens not to include that same wording that you quoted, probably because somebody else wrote that part of the /doc there; doesn't mean the |language= param should be handled any differently for books vs. web resources.

Personally, I don't find anything at MOS:MARKUP germane to the question of what citation parameters should or shouldn't be used, for two reasons: if you look at Template:Cite web#Usage, you'll see that the "Most commonly used parameters" example has nine params, and right under that, the full set has several dozen. Does MOS:MARKUP restrict using those additional parameters? I don't think so, otherwise, why have them? But there's a more important reason: the citation templates are neither HTML nor CSS markup, they are part of MediaWiki-designed software that augments HTML/CSS to provide transcludability, so MOS:MARKUP doesn't apply to templates.

I'm sure you noticed I didn't revert your removal of the |language=en because it's valid both ways. Something to keep in mind, is that MOS:VAR does say you shouldn't flip from one valid format to another valid one just because you prefer it, and that may apply here. I won't revert you if you flip them, because MOS:VAR still applies just as much after you remove them, as before; it's just that there's just no advantage to removing it in the first place. Hope this clarifies what I meant to say. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)