Jump to content

User talk:Sea Cow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andreas von Stackelberg (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 6 February 2022 (→German equivalents for US grades). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Nederland Independant School district

I'm a little confused on how the citations work, I'd like to have this information added (and I tried doing it again by my citation didn't work). Let me know what I need to do to make it happen! Drumlineman42 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumlineman42 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Leipzig Edit

Hey Sea Cow, thanks for the message. I apologize, I was certain I had included the citation. I appreciate you catching that error. Here is the citation for my last post:

Last Name: Chandler First Name: David G. The Campaigns of Napoleon Publisher: Simon and Schuster Year of publication: 1966 Location of Publication: 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 ISBN: 978-0-02-523600-8 Page(s): 932-933 Language: English


Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.hizer (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your edit with the source that you gave me provided, and it looks good to go. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hey, Sea Cow! I wanted to point you at Wikipedia:Should you ask a question at RfA? as it might be helpful. valereee (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for sending me this. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Boyle died

I saw an obituary indicating that he passed away on January 11. So I edited his page but haven’t sourced it yet. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.228.199 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The most complete how to guide is at WP:REFB, I would suggest watching the video to learn. If you have any questions or need help with this, please don't hesitate to ask me. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Monday in October

If you are referring to the 'apocryphal' quote "critics = crickets", it has now 'entered the mainstream' to the extent that it doesn't really need direct 'attribution'. I think it was first used by Peter Cook (I may be wrong), but I have found references to it by (amongst others) Mel Brooks and David Mamet.

If, however, you wish to know whose 'ideas' those were, they were mine, having just seen the film.

What now, Sea Cow ? ! 188.30.169.98 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please read Wikipedia:No original research, your original "ideas" that you constructed are not allowed on the English Wikipedia. They must come from a reliable source. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Reverted Edits to Columbia, Louisiana

Hello, Sea Cow. I noticed that you reverted my edits on the grounds that I didn't provide sources or citations. While you're correct that I didn't provide sources or citations, the information I had written is both more accurate and more informative than the previous revision which you reverted the page back to. I wrote that information as a native and lifelong resident of Caldwell Parish. That information is common knowledge to local residents, is easily verifiable by a quick Google search, and is information that likely doesn't need sources or citations, but I will include citations when I re-add that information to the page. Please refrain from reverting edits based solely on the lack of citations.24.48.169.112 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Those two outline that you must have reliable sources in your article, that prove the given topic. You cannot have original research, such as the info you have gathered by being a "lifelong" resident. I see that you have added back your edit, with sources. In that regard, any issues should be solved. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Sea Cow. This user is correct with his comments. You reverted ALL my edits because they did not follow the style guide and treated me like a new contributor. I am not. I might on one of the edits inside the commit have done something wrong. And you are completely welcome to fix or note mistakes by others. But reverting is for cases when just a load of crap was added. Otherwise, stuff needs to be fixed. Apparently, you think you know UOM and some other things better than me (And for all I know you do). Then show it by fixing or by annotating. As for the above. Your comment is correct (And maybe with mine, too) your actions are WRONG. Using the style guide to roll back edits is certainly not part of the style guide. I am in software and rollbacks are bad (Unless done by the submitter right after he committed his error) I want to keep you in your right and with your motivation to do things. But don't use your motivation to demotivate others. Your score seems to be at least two on the latter and that's not good! I am just editing my edit. Just to be clear (And when you make edits, you get warned) if you make false facts about a living person, everybody has the right / duty to roll those changes back immediately. Since you get warned for that, implied in that message is that you should not do this for edits to pages that are not about living persons, except maybe with true vandalism.

Edit change

Thanks.

Matthau is always 'reliable' (even when 'riled' by Jack Lemmon ! ), and the 'romance' with Clayburgh is well handled (given the 'constraints' of 'life pre-empting art' - Reagan appointing a female Justice necessitating the rushed release). I didn't want the film to end (a bit like 'a good book'); perhaps a bit 'late' (as are both Matthau and Clayburgh - groan.. [I mean they're dead]) for a 'sequel', but "you never know". Perhaps I'll make one some time ! 188.30.169.98 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake

You made a mistake on my edits on Imran Khan. I backed up my claims with authentic sources. Please go ahead and show me one source that was incorrect, i'll wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittensarereallycute (talk • contribs) 05:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted it because you said in one of your edit summaries, "indian sources were cited, which obviously means the allegations are void". I see no consensus on the talk page that this is the case, if there has been consensus to establish this, please point me in the direction and I will have no issue with your edit. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have to revert the whole thing you could've just reverted that one part manually. Everything else was backed by authentic sources like "one of the greatest all rounders in cricket".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittensarereallycute (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the reversion back to the version prior to the issue I had with it. Sea Cow (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another unjustly demoralized contributor because of your actions. Great job Sea Cow. Maybe also take feedback into account. You cannot just roll back to the last point you were comfortable with. I am comfortable with an empty page about trump only. Should I just roll his entire page back (It's locked anyway, for illustration purposes only)

On most addition, you don't have to first get to a consensus on the talk page. The consensus is to prevent flip-flopping that gets noticed by the contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ravenswing 22:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German equivalents for US grades

en.Wikipedia had already the information that eighth grade is equivalent to "8. Klasse". Germany has 16 different school systems - for each state a different one - but how we count the classes (beginning by one and adding one for each year) is the same in all 16 states. Sorry for trying to get the mess in these pages smaller - every grade has a different list of Countries with / without equivalents to the actual grade. I will certainly not try to better en.wikipedia again.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental issue with all of your edits is that you didn't add a source, in all of these articles, other portions have a source, for each country. Just provide it, but please don't leave the En wikipedia, just add sources next time. Sea Cow (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before: The pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_grade#Europe , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_grade#Germany have all the information needed. If eigth grade equals "Achte Klasse" and ninth grade equals "Neunte Klasse" then it is clear to anybody (obviously but you), that 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=5, 6=6, 7=7, 10=10, 11=11 in any language. If you need a proof from a book that seven minus one is six - then this is a lost case. You can certainly insist on stupidity - and obviously this is your right to do so. But my time is too short for this kind of obvious nonsense. There would be one chance to keep me collaborating in english Wikipedia - and that would be to accept that you were wrong in the first place and did not act according to basic logic - and add the information you erased yourself again. I am sure this will not happen - so: bye!Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you didn't provide a source that says that. There's nothing that you provided that says that that is the case. The warning at the top of the article says "This article needs additional citations for verification". By adding something without a source, you don't help the article. Just add a source that nationally says that 9th grade is 9. Klasse. There should be some national education office that lists the grades. Sea Cow (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a non-issue: You can add one to eight and see yourself that one plus eight is nine. If you don't believe it: Try it with seven = seventh grade has the information needed (without a source, by the way) - and when you add one to seven you get eigth - and "tadaa" eigth grade is eigth Klasse - what somebody in english wikipedia accepted - again without any source I can see. So what you are doing is arguing something that is obvious. If you need lexical proof that one and one is two - you are the wrong person to decide what is "vandalism".Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Do you even realize that your reverts are critized so often? I don't know one German admin that has as many bad critics as you have - if I would be you I would change my tactics.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a admin. I'd also confess that I'm still learning more and more about wikipedia, and trying to improve myself everyday. Sea Cow (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should be even more careful about reverts. I have done a lot of re-writing in German wikipedia if I felt the necessity - but reverts are something I avoid if possible. Especially with threatening an author to ban him if he tries to write here again.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the Wikipedia article on reliable sources: "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." I hope you can agree to that. It is not at all likely that anybody challenges one plus eight is nine. So there is NO citation needed. That YOU are nevertheless challenging basic facts as mathematics is a proof that something CAN be challenged, not that it is likely to be challenged - that would be true for everything and finally you could not cite anything because everything can be challenged and that is not what wikipedia says: It says: "likely to be challenged" - "eight plus one is nine" is NOT likely to be challenged. That's my point. And you still ignore that one - misusing the power somebody gave you.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Cow, I have to agree with Andreas von Stackelberg here – that "6. Klasse" means "Grade 6" wouldn't really need a source because it is trivially true. Even if you should feel that a source is necessary for the info about what the term "grade" is in German, it is still a bit over the top to remove it. In any case, on its own that info doesn't tell the reader much, since it's just a translation of the phrase, without any context. I added a bit of (sourced) text about that to Grade 6. --bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas von Stackelberg, the source that @Bonadea added should work. I was coming from the angle that the article had a warning about needing additional citations. I really didn't care if it was a translation, but we were actively extenuating the issue that was prevalent throughout the article. It's insanely minor of an issue, and in a well sourced article, I probably wouldn't have reverted it. I hope you can understand where I was coming from, but at the end of the day, this issue has been resolved. Cheers, Sea Cow (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bonadea, for trying to solve the issue. Thank you, Sea Cow, for explaining why you think you had to revert it. But the real issue comes now: What shall we do for first to fifth and tenth to thirteenth class? Have a discussion like this every time? The complete 13 pages are a mess - to put it mildly. Some pages have more than twenty translations - some have almost none (fifth grade for example). I think there should be at least some logic behind the question what we do about these thirteen pages in full. And sorry, my experience here tells me: I won't mess with it again. Too much work, too much discussion, too little effect and no concept at all why these pages exist or wat they should explain. But: I will think about collaborating with the rest of English wikipedia - just the "first" to "thirteenth grade"-pages I will avoid.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Freedom Convoy 2022 on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No problem! I'm not very good at explaining over text, but if you head to Help:Referencing for beginners, it has a really complete how-to guide. Please, if you have any questions, just reach out. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

So sorry for my mistakes with references on the previous pages! I’m trying to get the hang of editing here and I’ve slipped up, I’ll take note of my mistakes and try to improve ☺️ Cornmazes (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down with Huggle

This was a bad revert. You removed sourced content and restored unsourced content. Slow down -- I found this because a new editor was terrified they were about to get blocked because of the level 3 warning you dumped on them for adding sourced content. People can and do get blocked for a pattern of edits like this one. Vaticidalprophet 01:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Welp. The best way I can describe this is I messed up. Not much else to say, other than a sincere effort to have this not happen in the future will occur. Sea Cow (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay as long as you don't repeat it :) A lot of people go too fast with Huggle at some point. It's easy to do so. It's important to slow down, and if you're having trouble moderating your speed, consider using a less fast-paced antivandalism tool. It's also not a good tool for borderline calls like that one; true vandalism and BLP violations should be dealt with, but "adding a mix of sourced and unsourced content to an already unsourced article" is something that requires more complex management. Vaticidalprophet 06:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, Sea Cow, I was pretty optimistic about how things went in our last discussion of reverting as unsourced, but this revert doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. The content you removed had already been in the article for years, in the lede; meanwhile, Aleksei Smirnov is an FA in Russian, and if you look at that you'll find a reference to https://www.aleksey-smirnov.ru/bio.html, a sufficiently reliable source for this relatively noncontroversial claim. I've restored the section, citing that bio. Please don't just rollback things like this. If you don't feel like finding the sources yourself, that's completely fine. But either move on and leave the edit for someone else to review, or tag it as {{citation needed}} so that another editor can come along and cite it. I would never have found that in the page history if I hadn't looked at why Cornmazes had received two prior warnings.
I can't believe that I'm finding myself sticking up for unsourced additions, since a lot of my mainspace work is removing them, but the community has emphatically rejected over the years the idea that all unsourced content should be removed on sight. Please respect that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sea_Cow&oldid=1070309415"