User talk:Weelandlka

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Weelandlka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Does anyone know how to archive?"

You can just delete items from your user talk page, but you can also archive them on a new page if you like. To do this just start an archive page like perhaps User talk:Weelandlka/Archive01 and then move old conversations there. Personally I wait until I have 64 old conversations and then move them to a new archive page, like this one: User talk:Ahunt/Archive01. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2019 Canadian federal election. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

You're editing with good faith, but should probably step back. I'm putting the warning here only to be fair to the other I've warned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Working in a non-first language

From having to constantly fix your English in 2019 Canadian federal election, it is pretty obvious that you are having a lot of trouble writing in English, which I presume is not your first language. The bad English grammar, sentence structure and spelling you are introducing into articles is making a lot of work for other editors and is making for a poor quality article for the readers to try to understand. I would like to suggest that you instead work on the Wikipedia version in your own first language, instead of on English Wikipedia, where I am sure you could write without needing constant repairs and clean-up of your work done. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt Actually, English is my first language. The bad English grammar, sentence structure and spelling that you complain might have to do with the fact that I rush my edits. I try my best to keep the accurate and format them within Wikipedia guidelines. Next time, I will slow down and check for flaws before inputing my entry in. Thanks. Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I was concerned that might be the case. Slowing down may help you a lot. You may also want to ensure you are using a browser that has spellchecking, like Firefox or Google Chrome and make sure it is turned "on". Spelling is not my strong point either and using spellchecking on Firefox saves me a lot of edit fixes. That is what I am using to fix your edits. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I really think you need to either seriously slow down or else take a protracted break from editing, particularly at 2019 Canadian federal election. I just had to revert a long list of your edits there; They were so full of spelling and grammar errors that it made the article unreadable. I hate to say it, but your contributions are of such poor quality that they are hindering more than helping build the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt Ok apart from the Signh Turban's where my concern is place on the framming and date of time of the concern raised in Quebec. Telling the issuse with these paragraph:

     Leading up to and during the campaign, the PPC generated reaction for attracting  unsavory figures. Maxime Bernier generated a reaction after a photograph of him with members of an anti-immigration group surfaced online.Bernier told the media that everyone is welcome at his events, that he is unaware of their views, and stated that racism in not welcome within the party. He also stated would condemn those individual if the media could prove why they deserve that label but others thought that he was well aware of who was attending. A few weeks later, Bernier later repeated his statement on racism in an event in Toronto but was photographed with Paul Fromm. A spokesperson stated that Bernier had no idea who Fromm was, but others were skeptical of the explanation. Global News later reported that one of the party founding members was a former American Neo Nazi Leader, who was recently removed from the party after his past was revealed a month ago. They also reported that the other two members had ties to anti-immigrant groups where one of them also had ties to an anti-hate group. The party later told Global News that they had members from all backgrounds and cited removal of the former Neo Nazi, also revealed to be a member of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party  as an example of the PPC taking a stand against racism. The other members denied ever having racist views to Le Devoir.

First, I made the copy edit.Second, I had to remove trival details that I thaught were not notable on the wikipeida page. Third, I try to improve reability by focusing on details that would make not confuse the readers. Like the stuff about the party not vetting their member during the formation. Ususally, I am not a big fan of gossip and the way the articles are written do not make substantional proof that the Party should know. Weelandlka (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The issues you are looking at are fine to discuss and propose changes to. The issue is that your writing is not comprehensible. I got several "thank yous" and even a written "thank you" on my talk page for reverting your additions. Other editors cannot understand what you are writing and, by their comments, are struggling to either fix or remove your additions. In reading what you have written above here I can barely make out what you are getting it. You need to discuss these issues on the article talk page, but please slow down when writing, take your time, spellcheck everything and then copyedit what you have written for grammar and comprehension before saving it. There is no rush and WP:NODEADLINE. It may be helpful to you to compose your additions in a word processor off-line and then when you have it all polished up and completely readable, copy and paste it into the talk page for discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 election page

Hey Weelandka,

I think we need you back on the 2019 election page. You were the one that kept up with the news the most. Now, we're a bit behind with some news from what I understand (stuff that was covered a lot in the news is missing from the page). JonathanScotty (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Weelandlka, you may be blocked from editing. You're blanking thousands of bytes of text and removing reliable sources without any clear reason. Please don't continue to do so.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Vanilla  Sorry, I am just waiting to see the party viability before I stop editing on their page. If you wanted a bit more understand of the situation of what the party is going thorugh. Just ask me a question. You might not understand Canadian political history. Weelanlka 05:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Weelanlka, the viability of the party is not a factor when deciding whether or not it is appropriate to mention how reliable sources describe the party. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. I am going to very simply request that you please undo your own edits. You removed more content than I added. You fully removed a statement with 6 secondary reliable sources, when the proposal on the talk page was to have the lede mention what was already in the body. I never boldly added any sentences because I'm trying to get a consensus before making a controversial move. You just made the controversial decision to outright remove the sourced material without even trying to get a consensus. Please undo this. If we can't resolve this by talking to each other, then I will try to report this situation at the administrators noticeboard.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to be more clear. I don't have issues with your concerns. I just have issues with how you address those concerns on wikipedia. I thought that your concerns were with the ideology and spectrum, which is an ongoing discussion in talk page.Not how to frame sourced information. Weelanlka 05:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're trying to say, but I have to remind you that there is a 3 revert rule on Wikipedia. You have reverted three times. As of right now, I've reverted two times. If this dispute continues, we will have crossed the line. It's not productive to continue.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you should start a discussion first on the talk page about any concerns you have about the main page. Before, making changes to the main page. For example, When I wanted to insert "project cactus", I used the talk page to get a consensus for notability. I would have not repealed your changes.Then we can have discussion about your concerns Weelanlka 05:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

What concerns of mine are you talking about?? Adding more sources to a sentence that I didn't write??? You don't need to reach a consensus to cite your sources, that would be terrible.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

💙 I just have concerns about your approach and your behavior. Its not that you need a consensus to cite sources.Its that you added new information into Article then created a new section in the talk page instead of addressing previous discussions that were already mentioned or avoid concerns raised by certain editors about some of the sources you used. That's why, it comes off as suspicious to me. Some editors will think you are an activist with no understanding of Canadian political history. If your concerns are about political spectrum, there is an "Ideologies and Political Positions" section that is being discussed. My concerns are based on Wikipedia:MOS ifs its not in the infobox then its should not be on the lede. Since its not consistent and can confuse readers. I am trying to work with you. I want an Neutral point of view on every Wikipedia page no matter whats your political view on the topic. I do not want to start a new discussion explaining the issues of Wikipedia:MOS to editors that may have future concerns when reading the page. When reading your reasons, raise concerns about you making edits in Wikipedia:Assume bad faith Or calling the media a political opponents; without any proofs. It come off libelous. Also never use political opponents for the basis of defining spectrum. They are never considered attackdogs not experts. Its also partisan, which should be discouraged. You also presume that my English was my second language, which can be derogatory and makes think that you do not know about baith faith is. So I suggest that you delete the edit you made and start a new discussion to frame your concerns in a different way. Weelanlka 07:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Weelandlka,

I noticed an edit from you on my watchlist that was marked as a minor edit, but should not have been. It looks like you are marking almost all your edits as minor, even though they don't follow the requirements for being minor edits. Please follow Help:Minor edit in deciding what to mark as minor edits. In particular, any edit that adds or removes content from an article (even just a sentence), or which adds or removes references, should not be marked as minor. Thanks. Calathan (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)