User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Maxime Demers

Hi Girth, Im working in hydrographic too as a marine geomatician here in Canada. Maxime Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.215.32.23 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010‎ (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Girth Summit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gian (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Gian. I confess I'm slightly surprised by the welcome, since I've been editing Wikipedia for a few years now (albeit somewhat sporadically!), but thanks all the same.Girth Summit (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reflexology

I guess you have some arguments supporting your undo of my edit on reflexology. Please tell me. --Blindvei (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page; I didn't undo your edit, that was someone else, but I've explained why I think they did it.Girth Summit (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging users

Hi Girth Summit,

I only just saw your now two-week old comment here. Please be aware that templates are available to draw the attention of users you are dressing; see {{ping}}, {{re}}, and others. You don't have to use those, although they're convenient; you can also just link the username, like this: Hi, [[User:Mathglot|]], Regarding your post... and the user will be alerted by the notifications system that you are pinging them. More at WP:TALK and Help:Talk pages. It isn't necessary to ping a user on their own talk page, but anywhere else, it's considered a courtesy; unless they say "I'm watching this page," or, "I have this page watchlisted," which is their way of saying, "Don't ping me, please." One peculiarity of the Notifications system: if you misspell someone's name in a notification and then fix it later, you must change your sig (i.e., add a new ~~~~ at the end) or the notification won't be issued. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. (I hope that ping worked correctly!) I'll start pinging people in future. In that instance, I'd assumed that you would be notified of the revert and would look at the talk page, but I suppose you edit a lot of pages and don't have time to investigate every change. The tip is appreciated.Girth Summit (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, it did! Best, Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

This is excellent advice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It took a bit of time to type, but if it helps everyone avoid a repeat of yesterday's events, I'll consider it time well spent!Girth Summit (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI

You are generous, but this was not remotely a fair comment from an admin who should know better. You expressed yourself perfectly well, and appropriately, and don't let that foolish reply make you think otherwise. Grandpallama (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Grandpallama. Thought it best to err on the side of caution and explain what I meant in less confrontational language. Glad you could see what I was getting at! Girth Summit (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that certainly speaks well of your thoughtfulness, and good on you for taking the high road, but it was an inane statement to make about your original comment; nothing you said was confrontational or unwarranted, which is what bugged me about the response. Again, admins should (and generally do) know better, but it's also possible that a history of such comments from that particular admin may make me especially annoyed when I see them directed at someone who is newer. Happy editing! :) Grandpallama (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Glasgow and Weegies

In regards to the reverted edit on the Glasgow page [1] - I think you are wrong in this case. The two removed citations don't back up the claim, and the Peter Greenberg guide is 9 years old and written by an American. I can say confidently as someone from Glasgow that "weegie" is a very, very East-coast term (not always derogatory) and you would find it very rare to be used by someone from Glasgow.

A cursory google can back this up - I'm not fully up to scratch in Wikis citation quality requirements, but these pages should give you an idea:

https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/1wz08j/the_weegie_words_20_terms_that_prove_you_come/ http://www.fivestarvisas.com/newsandviews/welcome-to-glasgow/ http://www.rsdb.org/slur/weegie https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080426161932AAX3qg0&guccounter=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.158.82 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 109.174.158.82, there is a bit of a problem with sourcing here, I agree. The Peter Greenberg guide isn't ideal - he's a recognised and respected journalist, with a widely read travel blog, but I agree he's not a renowned expert on Glasgow dialect. However, the ones you found in your Google search aren't usable - they're all self published sources/blogs from non-notable people/companies etc.

I think that the Evening Times article perhaps sheds the most light on this - it's a 2014 article from a Glasgow paper, written for a Glasgow audience, and it uses the term repeatedly - that would seem to suggest that it is used by people from the city. (FWIW, which isn't much, I'm from Glasgow and I use the term, and I know plenty of other Glaswegians who do likewise). Can you find any reliable sources saying differently? Girth Summit (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, the sources are bad on both sides - which is my main reason for removing that section; there's nothing to back up the claim that we take on that moniker proudly. Personal experience tells me that it's not a term people from Glasgow use proudly, but as I say, it's rare not unheard of. I would say the two best sources to contest it are the rsdb link above, and this: https://lingomash.com/slang-meanings/19590/slang-meaning-of-wegie-weegie as well as the fact that most (Glasgow) user-posted comments in relation to the word seem to be negative.--Bryan5631 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Bryan5631 I can't agree that those are the best of what is definitely a bad bunch - they're both user-generated content, with no obvious editorial oversight, so not verifiable. To my mind, the Evening Times is the best source, because it is a notable publisher based in Glasgow and written for a Glasgow audience. It is using the word, in what I would say is quite a proud way - however, I accept that that is different from it asserting that the word is used with pride, and inferring the one from the other probably involves an element of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

The only source that your edit left in the text was Peter Greenberg, and he doesn't say anywhere that it's disparaging - all he says is that Glaswegians wear it with pride. I've asked for comment about this at WP:RSN, so we can see what other editors think about the sourcing. If it's contentious, it might be best to remove all reference to the word from the article until some proper sources can be identified.Girth Summit (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, you're right about the Evening Times having a bit more validation to it. I think it would be very hard to verify either side of the argument conclusively to be honest, as it is mostly an opinion-based statement - but waiting on inpu from other editors is a good idea.--Bryan5631 (talk) 010:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RSN The Star (Malaysia)

Hi Girth Summit. At RSN, you wrote, actually giving information on how to donate to her charity. All I see is a contact email address. Are you seeing something else? --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

HI Ronz It was the bit where it says Those who wish to help..., then gives phone numbers for two of the volunteers, and an e-mail address for her charity. I thought that was obviously a request for donations, but if you think that's a problematic inference I'd be happy to strike and reword? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a quote would be clearer. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Done.GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time series database

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time series database. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foursquare

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foursquare. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. --John (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

John That warning template is for use when someone is adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. I added entirely uncontroversial material, with sources that were discussed on the talk page and at WP:RSN. Don't be so aggressive, and please just engage with the discussion on the talk page, and explain your position - so far, all you've done is drop links to policies, but you're not responding to any arguments about why they don't apply. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cognitive biases

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cognitive biases. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Your recent advice to Willwill0415 has been both valuable and kind. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 16:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dogs

	Dog Lover
	To the one who loves dogs! And the one who is very nice! 24escheuanimal (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

213.78.70.193

Hi Girth, You make me sad - reference 'Me , sitting at my desk, now' :) And juvenile is a great word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.70.193 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't be sad - look, I gave you a new section. Juvenile is quite a good word, although it's not really up there with kerfuffle and bamboozle. We still can't add them willy-nilly to articles without sourcing. I'm sure you really are sitting at your desk, but I can't verify that fact. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Dogmatic.. another good word, as is pedantic and doctrinaire. Not sure I approve of the use of "will-nilly" not quite in keeping with the high brow nature of this fine online data repository. Honestly, i expect better from you Girth :) p.s. I do like my new section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.70.193 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing afghans in Germany and afghans in Russia afghan diaspora

We need to change it to German afghans, Russian afghans, Turkish afghans, Indian afghans, Swedish afghans. Please change title in Wikipedia please get everybody involved to change it. Sameem123 (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sameem123, thanks for your note. My user talk page isn't the place to have this discussion however - you need to go to the talk page for each of the articles in question, and make your case there. You will need to explain why you think we need to make these changes - it's not enough just to say 'we need to change it' - you need to say 'we need to change it because...'. Thanks! GirthSummit _(blether) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that’s all afghan kids who are born in different countries like afghans in Germany or other countries are ethnic groups you can change it to afghan Germans and Swedish afghans and British afghans its afghan diaspora. There’s my explanation. Sameem123 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, Sameem123, you can explain that on the talk page of each of the articles, rather than here. Thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletions from Keith M. Davidson

The IP that made this edit resolves to LA. What do you want to bet it's Davidson himself? Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Very possible. More likely his intern/flunky, who's getting shouted at right now because the stuff is still up. Gotta feel for the guy, but you can't just go around deleting all the stuff your boss doesn't like... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

+1 Based on what I've read about him, Davidson might just be as likely to take this directly to the Foundation. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please make the article more balanced

Dear Sir

You point out the fact that most scholars reject the historicity of the Bible. But these are biased researchers for who it will be hard to accept that what they reject is true. Most evangelical scholars accept that it is historically accurate MilBenedict (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilBenedict: See the note I left on your talk page. If you want to add something about what evangelical scholars think, you will need reliable sources, and to add content at an appropriate point in the article. What you absolutely must not do is insert your own words into the text of a direct quote taken from an attributed scholarly source. I would also add that if a view is held by the overwhelming majority of historians, then that view represents the historical consensus, even if you don't agree with it - it doesn't need to be obfuscated with phrases like 'the consensus of liberal scholars' or whatever. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of scholars who are not evangelical or practicing catholics or orthodox donnot accept the Biblie’s historicity. The opposite is true for the evangelical scholars. Both choose to focus and interpret the evidence accordingly. When you say majority what do you mean? The vast majority or Biblical researchers are found in Christian universities. The faculties devoted to the Bible are relatively small is secular universities. And many like Kennet Kitchen teach in secular universities and yet support the reliability of the text do the Bible MilBenedict (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilBenedict: First things first - don't start a new section every time you add a new comment, and please read WP:INDENT for notes on how to indent conversations to make it easier to follow who's saying what.

To address your comment: the consensus of historians is the consensus of all historians, of any faith or none. We're not talking about bible scholars, we're talking about historians whose studies touch upon this issue - anyone working on the period that the bible covers, but it might also touch on the history of ideas, history of literature, history of early languages, etc. It is not necessary for someone specifically to be a scholar of the bible to have a view on this - historians are trained to evaluate the sources available for their area of study. Now, please read the links I've provided on your talk page, and consider whether you would be able to write some content for the page which is reliably sources and could be put on the page to fill in some of the gaps you think it has. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI

It seemed pretty obvious but I was too busy to do anything. But you need to move your last comment as it's in the wrong section. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Done. I'm on a bit of a learning curve at the moment, I appreciate the friendly steer. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Girth Summit. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left a comment for you at WP:PERM/R. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda, I'll start having a look at Huggle and STiki now. Regarding your message, I' afraid I can't remember the specific edit that you were referring to, and of course now it's oversighted I can't check; however, I will make sure I read the relevant guidelines carefully and familiarise myself with what does need oversighting and how to get help when it's required. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Cummulonimbus article deleted section

Dear Girth, I deleted the Commercial Aviation section on purpose because, as an airline pilot, it contained some very bad advices resulting from misinterpreting Robert Buck's book, Weather Flying.

• First misconception: flying around a thunderstorm is dangerous.

In the book, pages 261 and 262, Buck discusses an hypothetical flight through a cold front in a small airplane flying around 10,000ft. What the author really says is that there is a risk associated when trying to climb to go through an opening in the line of clouds as it may outclimb the aircraft in an altitude where the stall speed and max speed are very close to each other.

• Second misconception: fly through the heaviest rain portion of a cummulonimbus cloud.

In page 267, Robert Buck explains that before airborne weather radar, pilots would pick the darkest part of the storm if they had to go through it. The author continues explaining that after the invention of the radar, the heaviest radar echo, which was due to heavy rain consisted in the storm core, so pilots began avoiding it. But the heaviest turbulence isn't exactly in the middle of the heavy rain, but very close, so avoiding the rain area by a good margin, you'll probably miss the worst of the turbulence. If you want, I can reproduce both excerpts from the book to you. Regards, s_arman 22:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir.arman (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I suggest you bring thiss up at the article talk page, where all interested parties can review your comments. Simply deleting the entire section might not be the best approach. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How to pages

Wasn't thinking... Thanks! I need to go to bed. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Alt-right page

Hi, I put in the quotation marks again as I explained in my original edit. Please understand the use of correct English in this instance. If a conservative uses "Alt-left" as a smear, they are not implying a false equivalence to the Alt-right. They are implying an ACTUAL equivalence. The implication of the equivalence is not "false" to the person making the implication. It is only "false" to the commentator on the implication, such as Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League (whom is obviously biased against the implication). He calls it a "false equivalence" in the linked source. It should therefore be in quotation marks only. If you remove these quotation marks, you are making this page non-neutral, and slanted towards his opinion, making it into a fact. It is not a fact that far left has no equivalence to the far right in terms of violence. It is an OPINION only. Many will disagree with this opinion. The Far left are well known to use violence and direct action as a tactic, as are the far right. Quotation marks must remain for quoted opinions. Thanks for your understanding. Transcendent28 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Transcendent28: See MOS:QUOTE. Quotation marks are to be used to denote attributed quotations, not to imply an air of doubt about something. The use of the quotes is correct in the second time that false equivalence is used in the paragraph, since the phrase is directly attributed to Mark Pitcavage, but in the first sentence there is no direct attribution so the quote marks are not necessary. The whole paragraph is rather awkward and repetitive however, so it might be better to reword the whole thing? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I tried removing the "false" words before but someone removed my changes due to the sentence being sourced. The trouble is, the source is actually a quote of someone's opinion. Without quotation marks, it's stating the "false equivalence" as a fact. It's not about casting doubt on it, it's about being politically neutral. If someone makes a smear against someone else, it is highly possible that the smearer believes their smear to be true, eg. if you call someone an "idiot", you might not be making a false accusation of them being an idiot. You could be ACTUALLY calling them an idiot. It's the same with the smear "Alt-left". I don't want this to turn into an edit war, because I'll get banned. Would you agree though, that removing the first instance of "false" would be the right thing to do, and then keep quotation marks round the second "False equivalence"?Transcendent28 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Transcendent28: I don't agree with your interpretation about the statement of fact. The assertion that is being made in Wikipedia's voice is that the term has been criticised as implying false equivalence - we're not saying that it is a false equivalence, we're saying that people have said that it's one, so I don't have a problem with the neutrality. I do think that the two sentences should probably be rolled into one, or otherwise redrafted, because they are currently quite repetitive. The quotation marks should be kept if we are quoting a specific individual, but they aren't essential. The best thing to do might be to propose some new wording on the article talk page? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

GAB^gab 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Girth Summit, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Orphan Wiki 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Orphan Wiki - it took me a bit of time to get my head around it, but I think I've figured out the basic functions. I'll continue playing around with it, but I can see this being something that I start using regularly. I've been doing a lot of work using Twinkle and recent changes lately, but I like how Stiki offers a way to look at older diffs and catch vandalism that made it through the recent change patrol. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem :) Yeah, I currently use Huggle, Twinkle and Stiki, and I've gotta say that Stiki is my favourite one. As you mention, there's plenty of vandalism that slips through the net cast by ClueBot_NG and RC patrollers, and the fact that this can still be cleared up is fantastic. I also think it's quite user friendly too. :)

Any questions on it, let me know, or post a message over at Wikipedia talk: STiki. Orphan Wiki 16:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hyundai atos

I have add more text at Hyundai Atos can you help me in the “access date” in references? Thanks

OK, looking at it now.GirthSummit _(blether) 13:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@TataPower2: The problem is that you are writing 'accessdate' as one word. It should be two words - 'access date' - I think that if you change that, the references will work.

Please can I check a point with you about your username - 'Tata' is obviously a brand of car, and since you are editing an article about a particular car model, can you confirm whether you have any relationship with Tata - are you an employee? It's not necessarily a problem if you are, but there are certain rules you have to follow, including declaring your interest - see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Quantrell/ Quantrill

Thank you for contacting me. As a writer , I should have known better. I can find and cite sources and will do so when i regain access to my books , specifically those pertaining to my ancestor William Clarke Quantrell. Thank you and apologies for the arbitrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. James Quantrell (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi C. James Quantrell, thanks for understanding the situation. Just to be clear about what we do in historical articles at Wikipedia: it's not the place to correct mistakes that historians have made. Our job is to reflect what historians have said, even if it contains mistakes. If our article is wrong about how most historians spell the name, and you can present reliable sources to demonstrate that, then you will have no problem gaining consensus for these changes; if, on the other hand, most historians spell it the way our article does, then we must continue to do so even if it is wrong. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original research or to right great wrongs; our aim is to summarise what up-to-date scholarly sources have to say about a subject. I suggest you find what sources you can, and discuss the changes on the talk page, according to our bold-revert-discuss cycle. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed citation from Fabiano Caruana

Hello, My edit was removed from the Fabiano Caruana Wiki ["Although he is not Jewish"] because the source was unreliable. Can you explain this. It's from the just-released New York Times article profiling Fabiano Caruana. He grew up in a heavily Jewish and Italian American neighborhood and attended an afterschool program hosted by a Jewish institution, but he himself is not Jewish. Within, there is a picture of his childhood home showing a picture of Jesus, which I posted.

• Here is the general article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/sports/bobby-fischer-chess-caruana.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur

• and here is the picture: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/11/05/sports/05chess6/merlin_143104467_dcd47054-5ed4-4c05-acd2-20dc63e3f046-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

What's the issue? He is Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.11.48 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @108.53.11.48:. Nowhere in that article does it say 'he is a Catholic', or 'he is not Jewish' - therefore, it does not support your assertion. That photograph is not useful as a source for your assertion because (1) it's not clear that it is a picture of Jesus (it doesn't look like one to me, and I was brought up Catholic - I've seen loads) and (2) even if it was clearly a picture of Jesus, you can not infer from that that he is a Catholic - that is WP:OR. I am not a Muslim, but I have Islamic prayer mats in my home - because I think they are beautiful. Find a reliable source that says 'He is not Jewish', or 'He is Catholic' - don't infer stuff from the pictures. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Girth, Fair enough. Please explicitly state that he went to Park Slope’s Congregation Beth Elohim for explicitly academic (concentration issues), and not for religious. The article is misleading and invites inferences that he attended the Jewish institution for religious reasons and he did not. Otherwise, why even mention it's a Jewish institution? It was a strictly academic program. Nobody writes "He attended Boston College, a Catholic institution" in their articles. Please fix.

That is a depiction of Jesus - it has a halo above his head. I feel as if you are deliberately being obtuse, but whatever. See: https://imgur.com/j041bMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.11.48 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/07/fabiano-caruana-chess-interview-world-championship-magnus-carlsen

"A dual US-Italian citizen who was born in Miami and spent his childhood in Brooklyn’s Park Slope neighborhood, Caruana – who goes by Fabi – started playing chess aged five in an after-school program that he had joined to address issues concentrating in school."

https://www.chess-site.com/chess-players/fabiano-caruana/

"At the age of five, Fabiano Caruana learned chess in an after-school chess program. His parents had enrolled him because he was experiencing some disciplinary problems and they hoped the program would help. "

@108.53.11.48: OK, first off, please read WP:THREAD - it gives some advice on how to structure talk page discussions so that it's clear who is saying what.

Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Next, be careful about saying things like 'I feel as if you are deliberately being obtuse' - you are required to assume good faith of other editors - I've spent quite a bit of time responding to you, and I'm not doing it to frustrate you. I am not being obtuse, I just don't agree with you.

Even if this was an picture of Christ on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns and with the wound on his side, this would not be a reliable source to say that the subject of the article is a Catholic , or even that he is not Jewish - you need a reliable, independently-published source saying words like 'he is a Catholic', or 'he is not Jewish'. That's not just my opinion - I genuinely don't care whether this guy is Jewish, Hindu, Norse pagan or whatever - it's policy. A reliable source is required for any assertion, and when it's about a living person the policy is strictly enforced. The quotes you've pasted above say literally nothing about his faith.

As it stands, I don't see any policy-based reason to change the current wording of this section of the article. The fact that he was discovered in a Jewish education centre is factual, non-defamatory, neutrally presented and reliably sourced. If you really think that his faith is an important matter than should be discussed in the article, then go and find a reliable source that actually tells us what his faith is (without us having to rely on inference), and write a sentence to add to the article. If you find such a source, I'll be happy to help you with inline citation formatting. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

False warning for nonconstructive edit

I read in my talk page that I had been warned on an edit that replaced a speedy deletion tag "because it did not appear constructive." I assume this was meant for the person who deleted the speedy delete tag, but if it is not, could you please explain why it was not constructive?

Thanks, QUICKWITTEDHARE _CONVERSE 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@QuickWittedHare: I'm truly sorry, I messed up. I am new to Huggle, and was attempting to CSD the page myself - how I managed to template you, I am not sure, but I obviously need to go a bit slower on Huggle. I'll strike the template on your talk page and apologise there as well. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Girth Summit! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks West.andrew.g - much appreciated. I'm enjoying using it, it's a great tool. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

HelpmeChoose99

Dear fellow contributor, Thank you for your comments. However in this case I believe you editorialising. TD Mary Mitchell O'Connor is pro abortion. I do not think many people would find that controversial. In editing biographies, we have a commitment to accurately descript peoples views and in this case I urge you to this standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpmeChoose99 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi HelpmeChoose99, thanks for your note. I've created a new section for it, and slightly refactored your comment - I hope you don't mind.

WP:Editorializing has a specific meaning around here - is that what you are saying I am guilty of? I don't see how it's relevant.

What I am doing is trying to ensure that our biographical article about a living person (WP:BLP) is neutrally written and accurately sourced. If you want to say that she is 'pro-abortion', then you will need a reliable source to support that assertion. In an area such as this, it is important that we do not use our own judgment to determine what 'most people would agree with'; instead we represent what reliable sources say about the subject of the article as closely as we can. Do not introduce your own phrases to define people of their views - use the phrases that the sources use. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Misidentified vandalism on Game theory, but essential to the sense.

Hallo, Girth Summit; perhaps you could check out whether your edit that I have just reverted was a simple slip on your part or suggests a possible improvement to STiki (with which I am unfamiliar). PJTraill (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi PJTraill - I re-read it, and you are absolutely correct - my bad. I'm in the process of noting on the editor's page that this was a mistake. I might insert a note in the text asking editors not to change this - it looks like other people have made the same incorrect correction (incorrection ought to be a word) in the past. Thanks for letting me know, and apologies for the disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; an HTML comment sounds like a good idea. PJTraill (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

My Ben Bishop post earlier

I apologize for my actions with the Ben Bishop post. I had been drinking and was very grumpy from a moment between Ben Bishop and Brad Marchand. It won’t happen again. I am a huge hockey fan and I let my irritation get the better of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinsfan1144 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries Bruinsfan1144. Thanks for putting your hands up, we've all made edits we regret later. WP:EUI is a good read! GirthSummit _(blether) 13:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Girth Summit. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

classical definition of Ayurveda

The definition describing the subject ayurveda must be present in the lede . so I made the new additions . These have to be present in the lede .Still I am Open for further discussion about the subject. 112.133.244.13 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't agree with you - what you are trying to add is one particular definition of Ayurveda, but there are others; the lead already defines what it is using other sources, and the source you are trying to include is already discussed in the body of the text. I don't think this content needs to be added to the lead, but I would not necessarily be averse to it being added further down in the article (if it was properly referenced, and the grammar and punctuation were to be tidied up).

I assume that you are the owner of the user account Nikhilesh1712? I say this because you are adding the same content that that account added recently, and which has been reverted several times by tronvillain, Roxy the dog and myself? What you are doing in repeatedly restoring content that has been reverted could be considered as edit warring. Please read WP:BRD, and then if you still want to add this content to the lead, start a discussion at the article talk page. If you continue to reinsert it without gaining consensus, your account may be blocked from editing.

Another point - you do not need to use the 'ref' tags to link to a Wikipedia article, you can simply write the title of the article in double square brackets to make a wikilink. (Having said that, I didn't really need a wikilink to definition, I already knew what that word meant).

Also, articles in Wikipedia have a lead section, which is different from a journalistic lede. It's worth reading this section of our manual of style for further guidance on what should and should not be included.

Finally (!) - please remember to log in when editing. It allows other editors to ping you in conversations and makes it a lot easier to keep track of who is doing and saying what. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Apology

I am sorry but am not really familiar with the landscape in wiki, I personally am from Namibia i am a Wambo and thought to just correct the text I will gather and prepare audio to further explain my reason for my action, is it possible that you could share your email address inorder for me to forward them to you.

thank You --NAMIBIAWIKI (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:NAMIBIAWIKI

Hi NAMIBIAWIKI - no apology needed! I'm going to put a 'welcome' template on your talk page with some links on how to go about building good articles. What you need are reliable, published sources using the spelling that you want us to use. If you made recordings yourself, and use that to argue that 'Ovambo' is wrong, it would be WP:Original Research, which isn't allowed. At Wikipedia, our job is to reflect what reliable sources say, even if we think that they are wrong - we're an encylopedia, not a place to WP:right great wrongs. If you can find published sources that you think support your argument, I'd be happy to take a look at them. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Girth Summit

Thank you this is highly appriciated

NAMIBIAWIKI (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

107.77.216.59

Hi Girth, this is Oberstein123, the true user of the IP address the section is named after. I never made that edit to Bad Bunny, nor do I know who he is. I don’t know who else is using this IP besides me. If there is any way to find out what happened, please tell me. Thanks. Oberstein123 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oberstein123: Hi, I'm not sure what you're talking about here - I'm not aware of having reverted any edits recently at Bad Bunny, can you provide some WP:diffs so I can work out what this is about? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oberstein123: Scratch that previous comment - I see that I did revert an edit, and leave a message at thee IP's talkpage, on the 1st of November (didn't check back far enough initially, sorry). I'm not an expert on IP addresses, so I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that phones get assigned a specific IP that they keep when they are connected via a mobile phone network - the service provider will have a range of addresses, that they assign dynamically as users log on. It might be an address that you often get assigned, but there will be other users who get it as well.

My advice would simply be to log in to your account whenever you edit, so there can't be any confusion about the IP. If you want more guidance on this, you could ask over at the WP:Teahouse, you'd probably people with more expertise than me over there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for getting back to me. Oberstein123 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Haskell Coffin

Thanks for your message.

>My suggestion would be to for you to create a page detailing the William Henry Coffin who you were talking about, supported by reliable sources, and then we could make >it clear to the reader that we have two articles for different artists of this name. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)

The problem with the existing entry is in its heading. The info presented there is about W. Haskell Coffin, and is accurate. The heading is false. William Henry Coffin is a different artist, who lived earlier, and who is irrelevant to the information presented in the article. Starting a new page for William Henry Coffin would not solve the problem, and I don't know that much about him. I have written a book on W. Haskell Coffin (http://www.enchantmentink.com/booka.php), and the heading on the existing article should be changed to read just Haskell Coffin, or at worst W. Haskell Coffin (Haskell never used more than W. Haskell in his signatures, probably because he didn't want to be confused with William Henry Coffin!). Thanks, Norm Platnick, Enchantment Ink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normplat (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Normplat: OK - changing the title of a page can't be done by ordinary editors, what you need to do is request that the content be moved to another page with a different title. The instructions for requesting a move are found at WP:RM. I've never been through this process myself, but hopefully the instrutions are clear enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Normplat: Hi - I did a bit more reading about page moves, and I now realise that I (as an 'autoconfirmed' user) can do a page move. I read through the sources in this article, and I agree with you that there seems to have been some confusion between these two similarly named artists. I've moved the page to William Haskell Coffin. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoops

Apparently TW didn't catch enough there. Tried to get a revert, but it missed the second edit which I'm assuming happened right as I made the rollback. Sorry! :( Neo^t/_c 14:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries Neolytical - happens to all of us! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Philips

Uh hello. Do you know what the term “lame duck” means? She is not a former state senator as she is still in office until 12/31. Lame duck is the accepted and correct term for her status but she is most certainly not the former state senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.122.7 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I do know what 'lame duck' means, although perhaps there is some regional variation - in the UK, it's pejorative, and certainly not 'accepted and correct'. I can see that you believe that your usage was correct, and so I apologise for the suggestion that your edit may have been vandalism; nevertheless, I'd suggest that it's a subjective term, which shouldn't be used in the first sentence of the lead in Wikipedia's voice. Either way, this is something of a moot point, given that my reversion of your edit was several weeks ago; there have been numerous changes to the article since then, and the text that I reverted to is no longer present in the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Did I respond to you regarding Cindy Alexander edit?

Hi, not sure if I responded to you regarding your post about editing Cindy Alexander's page and not entering why I edited it. I will do so in the future. Thanks for the heads up. Pennyframstad (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)pennyframstad

Hi there. I don't think that you did respond to me, but I went back and had a look at what you were doing at the time and I can see I was wrong to revert you - sorry about that. I use Huggle to review recent changes - it allows you to review recent changes very quickly, and it's really useful for responding quickly to the many vandalistic edits that come in constantly, but it is easy to make a mistake sometimes, which is what I'm afraid happened here. I saw your edit, and it rang a few alarm bells for me (no edit summary, removal of content, a typo in the content you added), and I wasn't aware that it was part of a series of changes that you'd been making - so yes, I reverted as potential vandalism. I can see that I should have looked more closely however, as you were doing lots of small changes to improve the article. It would help recent change patrollers like myself if, when you're doing work like that, you just include a small edit summary saying something along the lines of 'moving content to another section' or whatever; nevertheless, I should have looked more closely, so sorry for the unnecessary revert. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Girth Summit! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 10:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphan Wiki 10:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your review of my recent edit to Social networking service

Hi Girth, thank you for taking the time to give me valuable feedback. I do have several sources some of which I would like to share with you:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction

https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/feeding-the-addiction.aspx

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5362930/

I was under the impression it was a fairly obvious statement I was making about social media being found to affect the brain. But now I see your point of needing the citation so that everything is factual. I have done some reading up on how to add a citation (yes, I am a newbie :)) but I would need your inputs on what would be considered a valid source. Do let me know which of the above links would be acceptable.

And thank you for taking the time to walk me through all this. Truly appreciate your effort in helping keep Wikipedia clean.

@TestBedMatron: Hi, thanks for reaching out. Before I get into the sources you provided above, I'd like to draw your attention to our WP:MEDRS guidelines, which provide information on sourcing requirements for biomedical information. The assertion that you made in the article - that the 'positive-only' notifications on social media sites lead to demonstrable changes in the brains of users, similar to those in addicts - seems to me to fall squarely within the realm of biomedical information, so the MEDRS guidelines would apply here. Reviewing your sources:

• The Harvard 'SITN' site is a blog - an expert blog, but a blog nonetheless - and so would not meet MEDRS
• The Guardian/Observer article is journalism, synthesising the thoughts and findings of various researchers. Not MEDRS-compliant.
• The AMA site is also journalism, from the American Marketing Association - not MEDRS-compliant.
• The Psychology Today piece is popular science journalism - admittedly written by an expert - but the research it draws upon is a paper from 1998, long before social media sites as we know them today existed - I don't see how we could use that to support the assertion, even if it was MEDRS-compliant.
• The 'Science Reports' paper is probably the strongest - it's a research paper, published in an academic journal. However, it's a very small (20 subjects) primary study, and MEDRS generally looks for secondary studies such as meta-analyses; furthermore, it appears only to be looking at whether social networking sites themselves are addictive - we can't infer from it that it is the 'positive-only' notifications that cause changes in the brains without breaking rules on WP:SYNTH.

I'm sorry I can't be a bit more positive about the sources you found - writing on biomedical areas is tricky, it arguably requires a higher level of personal expertise, and better access to professional sources, than other areas on Wikipedia. What you would really be looking for would be a large study, or an analysis of multiple smaller studies, published in a respected scientific journal or psychology/neurology textbook, specifically discussing changes in the brain linked to 'positive-only' notifications on social media sites. If no such source exists, Wikipedia can't say that such changes in the brain actually happen. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow! You really have set a very high benchmark for a contributor. Thank you for not just pointing out the exact issues with each of the source but for also setting an example of how a newbie should be articulate and thorough. Lots of best wishes to you TestBedMatron (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi TestBedMatron, you're welcome, and thank you for the kind words. I put most of my effort here into removing vandalism and unsourced nonsense from our articles; I'm always happy to help someone who is genuinely trying to improve the project, and willing to put a bit of time into finding sources, it makes a nice change! Let me know if you need any help in the future. (By the way, I refactored your last comment slightly - we use colons to indent comments on talk pages to make it clear who is responding to whom. You can read more about it at WP:THREAD). Happy editing! GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

128.59.76.187

I literally played drums in this band. We are not a band anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.76.187 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I played in a few (terrible) bands that were not good enough to warrant a WP page, so congratulations! Let's cut to the chase: I believe you - I'm not saying you're a liar. However, this is the internet - nobody can check that you are who you say you are. Imagine that your band had not broken up, and that you were still totally active - would you want us to take the word of a random internet troll that you had split up? How can I tell that's not what you're doing right now? We aim for verifiability in everything we publish - please provide a reliable source to confirm your assertion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your message and I apologize for my tone. There is no way I can get a citation because that would require a publication or an interview to confirm the news which won't be happening anytime soon as we have disbanded once again and won't be taking an requests for press. Please let me know what else I can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.76.187 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. The best bet is to wait for a reliable source to report the fact that your band has split up. I appreciate that might take a bit of time, but that's just the way n encyclopedia works - it's not a news source, it's not up to the minute, it just reflects what other sources say. We might be able to use a primary source in extremis - did the band have an official website? It's not ideal, but I'd have thought that would be acceptable as a source, given the circumstances. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Sei Noelle (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

On Boomerangs

There is really no doubt that throwing sticks were being used by early hominins. I am not extrapolating and if you actually read the sources I have given the conclusion is clear. Throwing adaptations in the clavicle and humerus appear over two million years ago and are not a consequence of previous bipedal adaptations (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267812769_Clavicle_length_throwing_performance_and_the_reconstruction_of_the_Homo_erectus_shoulder). There are not only digging sticks from Acheulean sites in England, but projectile spears in Germany as well. This means that less sophisticated tecnology such as throwing sticks are likely to have preceded such developments. Large scale utilization of small mammals in the Lower Paleolithic layers of Zhoukoudian indicates sophisticated wooden projectile (throwing sticks) or trapping, of which the former is more likely. There is no other alternative-- scavenging is not even practical of small animals in such numbers. Tell me what you think of this and we can include something about early hominins and throwing sticks.

Hi, thanks for reaching out. It seems to me that you are drawing conclusions from published work here, which are not present in the work itself. That is, unfortunately, original research. If you want to assert that boomerangs were used by prehistoric Europeans, you must support it with a reliable source that says that boomerangs were used by prehistoric Europeans - we cannot draw inferences, no matter how obvious they seem to us. If you can present a source that directly supports the assertion you made, then I will support your changes. Paraphrasing is fine, indeed encouraged; but drawing conclusions from sources which are not explicitly stated in the sources themselves is not allowed. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Completion of Counter-Vandalism Academy

CVU Academy Graduate

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 100%. Well done! Further information on your achievement can be found here. It has been an absolute pleasure working with you these past few months. I appreciate your patience as I kept you waiting for feedback much too long on some assignments. Lately, I've been feeling a little discouraged by the whole Counter-Vandalism Academy program—I wasn't sure if it was very helpful for the students or the project, since much of the stuff we covered were things that some editors learn on their own over time. I was delighted to hear that you found it helpful. Hope to see you around! Mz7 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Thanks Mz7 - I certainly did find it useful. I'm sure that you're right in that I might have been able to learn a lot of the course content on my own, but having someone to direct me to the relevant policies made the learning process much smoother; the problem with trial and error is that the error bit can be disheartening, and has the potential to be disruptive. Having someone experienced to turn to with questions like the stuff about revdel/oversight, or with problems like the one I encountered trying to install STiki, was really reassuring. Thank you for taking the time to do that, and I too hope to see you around the place. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

About changes

	About changes
	You asked about reference . I have watched his videos since very long on youtube. Also i have provided references in external link box. Also you can search on google . I am new on wiki. So please don't change edition this time. I will authentic information always not fake. Love from india Slaveraza (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking to off-wiki identities

Hi, please do not link to off-wiki identities or website in SPIs. I've removed and suppressed one you just made. Even if it appears obvious, out policy on outing does not allow the connection to be made unless the individual makes it themselves (and a username doesn't count.) If making the connection is needed, you can contact the functionaries team who can review it in private, but in this case I do not think it is necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

And never mind, I see that one of the accounts *did* make a link. I did not see that before, so I've reversed my suppression, but I'm still keeping the content out (it can be seen in the history). If there's a link made on-wiki and you're saying it in an SPI, make it clear it was self-revealed. Otherwise those of us CUs who are also OS are going to get flustered TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, thanks for the advice. I thought the real-life identity was relevant since he was mentioning himself in the edits that he made, but I take your point - if I ever need to do anything like that again, I'll make it clear that the user has self-identified on their user page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Girth Summit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For making a sincere effort to welcome someone to Wikipedia and engage constructively. Very impressed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Wikipedia needs more kind people. You answered that call. Thank you for helping 24escheuanimal. 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You have a Wikifriend!

	Being a buddy
	Thank you for being a good friend to 24escheuanimal 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

IP Editing

Dear Girth, I recently received a message regarding an edit associated with an IP address from O2/Telefonica. First, I am a Registered User (AOR) but I was shocked to realise that Wikipedia allows edits from complete "randoms" with no accountability. Second, given that this system is so easy to abuse, I would like to know how Wikipedia decided that this was ever a good idea or how it prevents innocent users from being affected. All I see recently is a very large drop in quality and less reliable information. Please use your influence to rid us of these idiots. I realise that we would like to keep Wikipedia "open" but "wide open to abuse" will just lose everyone's "trust". 82.132.218.227 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Jimmy.Plus (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmy.Plus: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I think I can explain what's happened here:

• I'm not an expert on IP addresses, but my understanding is that ones like yours can be shared by multiple users - not simultaneously, but when you log in to your network, O2/Telefonica will assign you an address - they might commonly assign you the same one, but it might be used by someone else when you're not using it.
• The reason you saw the message is because you were not logged into your Wikipedia account - if you log into your account, you will only see messages intended for yourself, not for anonymous users of your IP address.
• Wikipedia has always allowed people to edit anonymously. As a recent change patroller, I frequently see good edits from IP users; on the other hand, I also see a lot of vandalism. We have a range of tools to help us identify and fight the vandalism however, such as protecting pages from IP edits, and blocking specific IP addresses from editing. Don't worry though - even if your IP address ended up getting blocked because someone else was using it for vandalism, you would be OK because you have already created your account. So long as you log in, you would still be able to edit.
• As for my influence to change anything, I'm afraid that's pretty minimal! I do what I can to fight vandalism and protect the quality of content on Wikipedia, that's really all we can do. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Further Girth Summit's points, I'd like to add that it is entirely possible for editors to sign up for multiple accounts with or without IP addresses, and this would be no more or less accountable, as far as I am aware. A user with an account would still have to be blocked by IP in any case. All I can see is that users who edit by account are allowed additional privilages, such as editing semi-protected articles and becoming admins. As such I'm not entirely clear on what you might mean, but if there's something I've overlooked I'm of course very open to dialogue. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

May I have help?

Hi, Girth Summit! It's me 24escheuanimal. May I have your help? I want to create a signature but I don't know how. Can you help me? Thanks, This is 24escheuanimal by the way. Thank you for always helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24escheuanimal (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 24escheuanimal, sorry for the slow response - I've not been logging in regularly over the holiday season, and I'm now at a conference in the US so pretty busy. Briefly, you can edit your signature by going into 'Preferences' (at the top of the page, near the link to your talk page), and scrolling down to the 'Signature' section. You then code the style you want to use. You can find guidance on how to code it, as well as a few notes on what is and is not allowed, at WP:SIGTUT. Another idea is to look at the coding for other people's signatures you like the look of, simply by going into edit mode on a talk page they have commented on, and seeing how they did it. Make sure to modify it sufficiently so that you make it your own however - you don't want a signature that looks just like somebody else's, it can be confusing for other editors. Hope that's helpful GirthSummit _(blether) 19:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting

Why did you delete my editing in some wiki pages. My corrections were actually correct Xeno7 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Xeno7:, thanks for reaching out. I checked through your history, and found the edits I reverted. In both cases, the reason I gave in the edit summary was that your edits broke the formatting of the infobox - did you actually look at the articles after you hit the 'publish changes' button? Inserting text within an infobox without following the template will cause the whole box to display on screen as a bunch of unformatted text - which is exactly what happened in both of those instances.

Additionally, I'd note that you were adding information in the Greek language with Greek characters. This is English Wikipedia, you should use the English language, or explain (in English) why you are inserting text in Greek (if for example it is a direct quote from a source, which you will then go on to translate).

Out of curiosity, I've just entered the text that inserted into Google Translate: 'MOUNTAIN VASES AND TAKE IT OUR OLD CUSTOMERS WILL BE YOU' inserted a the top of the infobox of a professional basketball player, and 'POWDER AND GINNAKOPOULE BURNS' added to that of a businessman. I had assumed that these were good-faith attempts to improve the article by a new user who didn't know how to format infoboxes, but now I'm not so sure - can you explain what you were doing here, or should I just go ahead and report you to admins for vandalism? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tidewings

Since Tidewings' talk page ended up (by default) on my watchlist after posting warnings of edit warring there, I have been surreptitiously watching your interaction with him. I must applaud your patience in dealing with him. I have been editing articles on Macedonia (both ancient and modern) for a decade now and some of our practices (like not calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence) are based on long-standing consensus and compromise among many editors, both Greek and non-Greek ("non-Greek" includes very few actual Macedonians, although new Greek editors think that we all live on the same avenue in Skopje). Whenever there are real-world events in the Greece/Macedonia copyright infringement dispute, new Greek editors arrive to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence of ancient Macedonia articles again (too often by edit warring). The pattern repeats itself so often that it's predictable and new editors like Tidewings simply look like every other previous one. I just wanted to thank you again for your efforts with Tidewings. Perhaps they will pay off. I see that he has at least expanded beyond editing just the one article and is editing on a second one. Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for reaching out. I kind of expected that you might be watching - I know that, if I'd been involved in a dispute with someone, I'd probably have half an eye on their talkpage for a while. I hope you don't take offence at anything I've said in the conversation - if I'm honest, I do think you were a bit bitey, and quick to assume nationalistic motivations. I also think, as I hope I've made clear, that their response to that was disproportionate.

As someone who edits in pseudoscience/medicine areas, I do understand the frustration of seeing new account after new account come along with the same tired old arguments; I know how it can become frustrating. I've been trying to help Tidewings because I genuinely believe in helping new editors get to grips with processes here. We clashed at the article on Feta - I was doing routine anti-vandal work and reverted him, and he reinstated his edit, but at least started a section on the talk page and engaged in discussion - I take that as a sign that they are able and willing to engage in good faith collaboration, if given the right encouragement. We were able to arrive at a compromise that I think actually benefited the article, so I hope that this is an editor who, once they learn how to go about doing things, may be a benefit to the project.

I actually teach on ancient Greece - to nine year olds! So, I have an interest in the area, but am no kind of expert. I appreciate that there is an established consensus position on how we refer to Macedonia on pages like this; I'm not personally seeking to change that, but others are entitled to do so if they have appropriate sources and arguments. I've so far seen neither from Tidewings, but so I have a better understanding of the current position, could you point me to the sources used to support the consensus? I haven't yet read up on the links you provided early in the conversation to discussions back in 2005 - 2010 - if it's all in there then I'll review them, but if there's anything more recent than that I'd be keen to read it.

If nothing else, I'm learning a lot during this discussion! Thanks again for dropping me a note. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I took no offense to anything you said. I do, indeed, bite the new guys and shouldn't. I don't have your patience. As to the matter of calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek" kingdom in the first sentence, if there were specific references used they are buried back in the discussions in the middle of the '00's. The problem is that there are reliable sources that call the ancient Macedonians "Greeks" without a second's hesitation and there are reliable sources that don't call the Macedonians "Greeks" ever or at least without a considerable amount of description of the complexities and differences. The truth is that the ancient Macedonians, at least before Alexander, are probably better described as "almost, but not quite Greeks" or "barely Greeks". There were ancient authors who unambiguously distinguished them from Greeks and there were ancient authors who included them as Greeks (so I always get a chuckle whenever a newbie claims that they have command of the ancient sources--that usually only means that they're a native speaker of Greek, not that they're an expert on the ancient sources). So the compromise that has been worked out amongst (almost) all the long-time editors of these articles, both Greek and non-Greek, is that the first sentence should not make a commitment to the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, but that the complexities should be clearly described in the article--both the similarities and differences, the ways they acted like Greeks and the ways they didn't, etc. If a reader gets through one of these articles they understand the closeness of the Macedonians to the Greeks and that eventually the Macedonians merged into the Greeks. The reader can make their own decision about when the Macedonians became Greek without being forced to adhere to the "Greek" POV from the very beginning. I hope that clarifies the situation. That compromise was probably reached on another of the half dozen articles directly associated with ancient Macedonia and not necessarily in the history of Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). But the interested editors have applied that compromise throughout the ancient Macedonian suite of articles (although there may be one or two that have slipped through the net). --Taivo (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Then there is the political reason why the compromise was reached: putting "Greek" prominently in the first sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with fairly describing ancient Macedonia and everything to do with planting a Greek flag right up front and poking (modern) Macedonia in the eye with the flagpole. --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That does actually sound like a workable and sensible compromise to me - I agree that if it's contested, we should aim to present (and attribute) both sides without taking a view. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:198.97.67.51.

I have not edited Dark Matter and do not recall even reading the page. Hence I have no dispute regarding anything there. 198.97.67.50 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - if you look at your contributions, you'll see that Dark Matter was indeed the last article edited from your IP address before this talk page. It's possible that you share your IP address with other users - I'd recommend that you create an account in that case, to avoid getting messages intended for other people who share your IP address. (Also, if the IP address ends up blocked because of vandalism coming from it, you would be able to use your account despite the block). Hope that helps, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)