Jump to content

User talk:FormalDude/Archive/2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:FormalDude | Archive

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by FormalDude (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 31 March 2023 (format). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Udayan Duarah

Did you really intend to do this and this? I declined the draft because it was non notable and promotional, and the editor then removed a bunch of material and resubmitted the draft for evaluation. I seriously doubt the draft will be accepted, but I'm not sure why you called it a non-constructive edit, worth reverting and worth leaving a warning. Draftspace is a type of sandbox. What have I missed? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

trout Self-trout You didn't miss anything. I apparently did not notice that was a draft page. Sorry for the mistake and thank you for the correction. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 20:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Important notice

(no worries at all; I'm currently sending these to as many formally "unaware" people editing in the area as possible, because if a discussion at WP:AE is ever needed, a prior lack of such notifications can be very frustrating.)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: this revert: Russian military deception oldid=1034543080. If you check the Template:Sfn documentation, you will see that it does not support the "url=" parameter. Its content does not output and its presence places the page in the Category:Pages using sfn with unknown parameters. Making detailed description like this for every edit is a bit time-consuming and I took the easy road, hoping that whoever reviews iit (if anybody), they will know about what parameters are and aren't supported, obviously I was wrong. If you attempt to edit the page now and do a preview, you will notice the technical message(s) "Preview warning: Page using Template:Sfn with unknown parameter 'url'". I hope this clarifies the matter and believe that, now being aware of the reason behind my edits, you should restore my versions. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I misread the edit as completely removing the citation. Another editor has restored your version. Take care! ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 14:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries, thank you for keeping an eye on what's going on! I am aware of the issue with vandals and appreciate being given an opportunity to explain the reasons for my edits. Take care, too! 84.69.182.103 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:The Beach Boys on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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 14:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reply regarding Nicaragua article

Is this message also sent to the other editor? As they seem to be doing what you listed above, "seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page". The info I added are referenced in the references listed. You say they are not, did you check the references thoroughly? Completely reverting, you also removed OTHER sources I added NOT related to the section I previously was editing, and some hyperlinks. Why not JUST remove the sources YOU SAY are the ones that do "not verify the added text."? Is it because you didn't bother to read through them to actually verify? 108.185.22.229 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find anything that verifies the text you added to Nicaragua in the respective sources. Some of the sources are spanish-language (halbo espeñol a un nivel básico) but I still did not find anything that translates. Can you provide a corroborating quote from the source? Also, there's no consesus to use American english over of British english in the article, and we should try to keep it consistent one way the other. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 23:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The consistency is American English throughout the article, is it not?

For the paragraph in the Nicaragua wiki I edited: "Nicaragua's central region and its Caribbean coast were inhabited by Macro-Chibchan language ethnic groups such as the Miskito, Rama, Mayangna, and Matagalpas. They had coalesced in Central America and migrated also to and from present-day northern Colombia and nearby areas."

This is from the source I added, "Three of Nicaragua’s seven Indigenous Peoples live in the Pacific, central and northern regions: the Chorotega (221,000), the Cacaopera or Matagalpa (97,500), the Ocanxiu or Sutiaba (49,000) and the Nahoa or Nahuatl (20,000). In addition, the Caribbean (or Atlantic) coast is inhabited by the Miskitu (150,000), the Sumu or Mayangna (27,000) and the Rama (2,000). Other peoples who also enjoy collective rights, according to the Political Constitution of Nicaragua (1987), are the Afro-descendants, also known as “ethnic communities” in national legislation. These include the Creole or Kriol (43,000) and the Garífuna (2,500)."

The Nicaragua wiki section I edited is talking about the CENTRAL and CARIBBEAN coast, where the ethnic groups that inhabited were miskito, rama, mayangna/sumo, matagalpas. The Chorotega, Sutiaba and Nahuas (Nicaraos) were from the PACIFIC area and mentioned in the other paragraph. So how does that source not verify that text? Not including the fact that the respective pages have the same info, referenced. This article is about a SPANISH speaking nation, your poco español is not my issue, there are translators. If you are going to revert my edit and not go through the trouble to verify the information you CLAIM is not mentioned in the source, you should not doing it in the first place. The references for some of the things I removed, which I left on the edit summary an edit or two ago, were actually NOT mentioned in the source. Which is why I removed it and reworded that. I also fixed a broken ref with an outdated sentence regarding the new highway, also something you quickly reverted in the overall revert. Instead of going in and removing ONLY what you claim is not sourced. I can go hit the page with plenty of "ref needed" for some of the information that is not even in the proper sources if needed, when I have some extra time. 108.185.22.229 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I restored your edit. Sorry for the disruption. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 23:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug

I would appreciate it if you withdrew the blatantly false accusation of me “moving goal posts” on the discussion of the Beach Boys thread, when I was responding to the point made by Alsee about how standards for music group templates have currently active members on the top line, and past members on the bottom. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:SLANDER refers to personal attacks and legal threats, neither of which my comment was. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 06:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You made a false accusation about my motives and actions, and proceeded to respond with a sarcastic comment hostile to me. I never expressed support or opposition to what Alsee suggested, none of which constitutes “moving goal posts” - which oddly enough you never accused Alsee of. Either drop your hostility and remove your accusation, or I will report you. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a true statement about how your comment shifted the criterion of the debate. That's an accurate description of your actions and doesn't have any implications about your motives. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 06:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Responding neutrally to a suggestion made by another user and detailing what such a suggestion would entail does NOT constitute “moving goal posts”. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to be any clearer in that you were explicitly moving the goal posts (see Moving the goalposts#Logical fallacy) by commenting a detracting proposition on another user's point of debate. The other user's argument was on how the policy applies in the context of the given sources, and you started talking about how it could be interpreted legally, not even mentioning the sources, just stating your opinions on how much you value certain members in the band's history. That's an Appeal to consequences–not neutrality. Wikipedia doesn't go off of feelings, it is a WP:TERTIARY source that goes off of other significant reliable sources. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 10:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#User:FormalDude regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Ah shit, here we go again." ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 06:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Draft:Stephen S. Myers on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump RfC close

I'm surprised and disappointed to see your close of the RfC concerning "misogynistic" in the Trump lead. The opinions were roughly evenly divided, with cogent arguments against inclusion. You somewhat mischaracterized some of the opposition, including mine, by dismissing claims of false equivalence as being irrelevant -- your personal view. Further, the existence of many RS calling him misogynistic does not of itself establish DUE WEIGHT, let alone for the lead. Please consider reversing your close and await an uninvolved Admin per a new close request. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, thank you for your comment. I will consider reversing my close if you have a valid reason for not concurring with the consensus and close.
As I see it, though, the consensus was that claims of false equivalence and WP:FALSEBALANCE were not particularly important factors to the very specific question that the RfC posed of including "misogynistic" in one sentence in the Trump lede.
I was not trying to say that RS describing him as misogynistic is justified due weight, I was trying to say that the consensus was that widespread significant coverage in reliable sources is the main reason for being an example of valid due weight and the main reason for inclusion of the word in general.
If you think the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, I am happy to reword it, however I think the result was accurate. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 23:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No, consensus means general agreement. Opinion was divided and inconclusive. I've reverted your text, the false equivalence that was explicitly opposed. Please do the right thing and let fresh eyes close this. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. It was a general agreement as you were the only dissenting opposition. Two users agreed with you without providing new or additional justification/reasoning, whereas five users voiced support, each with unique reasoning. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 00:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
That's grossly inaccurate. Frankly, an editor with your limited experience should not be closing RfC's in difficult and contentious topic areas, let alone ones that you yourself are actively editing. Please reverse your close so that we can avoid a formal close review by the larger community. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I've reversed the closure. What in my last comment was inaccurate? Although it was 5-2, I know consensus is not votes, and my emphasis is on the two who agreed with you did not add any new argument (one of them just said "per"). Whereas all five of the supporting voices justified their reasoning rather than just merely who they agreed with. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • SPECIFICO is correct that this wasn't a super straightforward close (most closes at WP:CR or involving American politics aren't), but I think you did a fine enough job with it, FormalDude, even though you found consensus against the position SPECIFICO supported. I'm disappointed to see SPECIFICO trying to use their longer tenure to try to delegitimize the close and pressure you to revert it—we are supposed to all be equal here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, @Sdkb. I mainly reversed the close because SPECIFICO is right in that I probably shouldn't be closing discussions on topics that I'm actively editing, and I have weighed in on the Donald Trump page once or twice recently. The discussion had been inactive for quite a while though. Anyways, we'll see what happens. Have a good one! ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 17:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking more closely at this: It appears this was not an RfC, but rather an informal poll that died out with little participation and was archived on June 3. It died, and it should not have been "closed" after being archived. Any attempt to make this change would need a new active thread. Given the disinterest in the archived discussion, I dont think that would be worthwhile. The close request on a dead months-old archive is moot. Sdkb, I'm surprised you failed to see this larger issue. We dont edit old archives. SPECIFICO talk 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right it apparently is not an RfC. Sorry about that @SPECIFICO. I have no interest in restarting the thread, I was just going through the WP:Closure requests and come upon this one. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Chalk it up to inexperience. No problem. Maybe @Sdkb: will reconsider their harsh interjections above. Happy editing. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I'd prefer, if you wouldn't mind, dropping all the experience talk. @Sdkb is very experienced and is the one who apparently made the mistake of listing Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_136#"Many_of_his_comments_and_actions_have_been_characterized_as_racially_charged_or_racist." which I responded to. I'm not sure if that even was a mistake though, as I'm not super familiar with what the closing requirements are for "other" discussions (meaning not RfC/AfD). ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Experience is an objective fact. It was the softer way to interpret your egregious misstep. I don't really care what Sk has to say. It just struck me as bizarre that he chose to address me rather than the screwup of closing a long-archived and inconsequential talk page thread and then jumping in to amend article text in a way not decided in the poll. Practice makes perfect. That's not a WP thing, just the way humans operate. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Well it was the way decided in consensus, just not the way you wanted. I don't why you're mentioning that though since is was long-archived and apparently not able to be closed anyways. And yes experience is objective, but it makes little sense to point that out when the mistake wouldn't have happened if an editor who is even more experienced than you (Sdkb) hadn't specifically asked for a closure of the thread. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 20:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, when I listed it at closure requests, I put it in the other section, not the RfC section, and did not refer to it as an RfC. It is perfectly acceptable and regularly done to ask for closures at that noticeboard even if they were not formal RfCs, and it is also regular practice to close discussions after they have been archived. Your pressuring for this not to receive a close comes across as not wanting to give a closer an opportunity to find consensus against a position you took. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Kinda figured that was the case. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 21:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Anti-Barney humor are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 08:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Grand Delusion I'm well aware and I reverted that edit about 45 minutes before your template. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
164 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Apron (talk) Add sources
374 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 (talk) Add sources
47 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Pain compliance (talk) Add sources
4 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C CMB Thénia (talk) Add sources
927 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China (talk) Add sources
1,908 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Los Angeles Clippers (talk) Add sources
104 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA COVID-19 misinformation by the United States (talk) Cleanup
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) (talk) Cleanup
33 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Cyberattacks during the Russo-Georgian War (talk) Cleanup
313 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: GA Linda Sarsour (talk) Expand
5 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Garde communale (talk) Expand
1,563 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B MSNBC (talk) Expand
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B History of the San Francisco Police Department (talk) Unencyclopaedic
42 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Juancho Triviño (talk) Unencyclopaedic
439 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B 1 (Beatles album) (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,043 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (talk) Merge
48 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Overturned convictions in the United States (talk) Merge
105 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Tomahawk chop (talk) Merge
149 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Gender essentialism (talk) Wikify
2,006 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Subway (restaurant) (talk) Wikify
33 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Shindo Renmei (talk) Wikify
5 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C MIT Crime Club (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Zigha Djamila (talk) Orphan
30 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C María de los Ángeles Pineda Villa (talk) Orphan
337 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Semantic Scholar (talk) Stub
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Land of the Free (Joey Badass song) (talk) Stub
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub EOD CoE (talk) Stub
1,952 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Jac Schaeffer (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Terrorist bombings in Algeria (talk) Stub
94 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bernard Coyne (giant) (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #479

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Added a tags parameter to the wbmergeitems API so Item merges can now also get an edit tag (T286778)
    • Mismatch Finder: Continued working on the store part. This week we focused on uploading a file with potential mismatches and the UI for getting a list of all uploaded mismatch files.
    • Addressing comments from the security review of the Query Builder so we can hopefully soon move it from the test system to its proper place under query.wikidata.org

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

VRT topicicon

I was unsure if you intended to replace the now-deleted image, but I meanwhile removed the template from the VRT page. Feel free to fix/restore it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate, appreciate it! ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 19:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#What's_appropriate_as_an_RfC_comment? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

signature

It looks like you have a malformed signature; it has an opening <span> tag with no corresponding </span> tag, keeping everything that follows it in the talk page within the scope of the tag. See [2]. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Shit, I'll fix it right now. It's at User:FormalDude/Sig, feel free to edit it as well anytime. Thanks for the notice. ––FormalDudetalk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I figured if no one ever told you, how would you know? TJRC (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@TJRC: Exactly right lol. I don't think it affected anyone else's text after my signature anywhere, did it? ––FormalDudetalk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure; it makes (made?; I think you fixed it) editing a talk page confusing, because everything being added is highlighted as being within a tag somewhere. I thought I'd opened something like a <ref> and forgotten to close it, and couldn't figure out what was going on until I saw your sig. But I suspect it did not effect the presentation on the saved page. TJRC (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

edit request

Hi! I saw that you changed the edit request to answered regarding the death of Dusty Hill. Is the edit request closed for good? There is a note indicating to wait for sources to come to a consensus because different dates are reported. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought that conversation was over but I see now it is still being discussed. I went ahead and changed it from the edit request format to just a regular discussion since edit requests are limited in what they can be used for, typically just specific clear-cut changes, and this is a now essentially a dialogue about sourcing. So no, it is not closed for good. Feel free to continue discussing on the article talk page! ––FormalDude(talk) 22:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

read me

How are my edits "uncivil"? I'm just speaking the truth.

--Imagine editing wlkipedia (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Imagine editing wlkipedia: You're speaking pure lies. Saying that the UTA is "designed by filthy Democrats in order to 'help' people in need" and all that crap about communism is ridiculous, and if you continue making edits like that you're likely to be blocked. ––FormalDude(talk) 23:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiRacdl02w4
--Imagine editing wlkipedia (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
D: ––FormalDude(talk) 23:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A word to the wise, hopefully?

FormalDude, forgive me, but you have been overdoing it a little in the discussions at Talk:Donald Trump. A talk page is a place to discuss, and hopefully develop consensus. A talk page is a place for people to express their opinions on what to put in the article. It not a debating contest; you don't have to “win”. If someone has a different opinion from you, that doesn’t mean you must argue with them until they either change their mind or give up. State your opinion, let them state theirs, and let the record stand. If you have a valid counter-point to make about someone’s opinion, sure, make it. But it isn’t necessary to reply to every person whose opinion is different from yours - especially if you are making the same argument each time. It isn’t necessary to carry an argument from one discussion over to a completely different discussion.

I don’t mean to put you down, quite the contrary. You are smart and articulate and well informed, and you have important contributions to make here. I’m just saying, try to make your points without going overboard. Here’s a helpful motto for you to keep in mind (not original, I stole it from someone else): “At Wikipedia it’s important to recognize when to stop arguing with someone - and simply let them be wrong.” -- MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm really not trying to go overboard with my comments, and especially not to repeat points I've already made. Sorry for bringing an argument from one discussion over to a different one, that was definitely pushing it, and won't happen again.
It's not my intent to make any debate into a contest that someone has to win. I've replied to you a couple times because I found your point of debate to be valid, and expected that either I or you would learn something from a clarifying discussion. I can see how that can come off as trying to "win" the debate or pestering, but I was only meaning to make a good faith counter-point about your opinion.
My general rule of thumb is to step away from talk pages once I've engaged with about three or so editors. After that it can get hard to follow each thread and I've honestly usually made all my points by then anyways. That is a great motto though and one that I certainly need to follow better. ––FormalDude(talk) 01:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my comments in good faith. BTW you referred to me as an admin in one of the discussions; actually I function as just another editor at that page, because of WP:INVOLVED. No awe required or deserved! (BTW it was probably inevitable that you and I might come into conflict; I went to Stanford! 0;-D ) -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I admit after seeing your Stanford userbox I became more intrigued with your comments XD ––FormalDude(talk) 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry of Syed Mian

Could you please enlighten what you know about jansath , sayyed brothers , and Syed Mian . You have edited my content that i’ve written but this is all truth . I’d appreciate it. Legitimatesaying (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Legitimatesaying: I reverted your contributions because they did not provide a source. If you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 08:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
But there is no online citation , i looked for it i’ve proofs, pictures , shajra e nasab, hardcopies of these. And i just mentioned about Sayyed Saifuddin Ali khan and his descendants who are actually living in jansath in their palace. If you want to know more , you can talk to me personally.
Legitimatesaying (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Legitimatesaying: Unfortunately, as a part of Wikipedia policy, citations are required. You can still cite references that aren't a website, like books, journals, and magazines, among others. But the content does require a cited source. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I like to give credit where credit is due and I appreciated your comment here [[3]]. It's easy to get carried away in these debates and assume the worst. Gracious replies like the one you posted makes it much easier to assume good faith from others. Hats off to you. Springee (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks! Sounds like giving credit where due is something you and I have in common ☺ ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 22:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the productive discussion here [[4]]. Springee (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
You too, @Springee! Your comments were valuable and helpful. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 20:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein no longer "fears" the mRNA vaccines!

Considering how invested you were in my RfC, I am sure you will be happy to learn my other proposal was implemented. The apparent scare quotes around the fears Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying have, concerning the vaccines, are gone. Interestingly, they should have never been there, because it is a violation of MOS:QUOTEPOV. Personally, I did not even know there was a policy this specific, I was just going by instinct.

What do you think is the reason such an obvious mistake was introduced in the article and firmly defended by seemingly experienced editors? Dylath Leen (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, honestly I didn't even see that dispute discussion. I do a lot of editing and I had no investment in your RfC–after all I dropped our argument after concluding it was circular. I'm not sure what the proposal was that was implemented, but it sounds like it was the right choice. I'd be happy to answer your question if you point out the specific text that was removed. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 22:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The mistake was not text removed, it was quotation marks added, which created an impression of NPOV.
I brought it up for the first time in this discussion Talk:Bret_Weinstein/Archive_1#Covid-19_and_Ivermectin. It was dismissed by Alexbrn, who seriously should not be that incompetent. I tried again in this following discussion Talk:Bret_Weinstein/Archive_1#Misinformation,_disinformation_and_Bret_Weinstein, where it wasn't even addressed. Other people, who also should know better, must've read the description of the issue and decided to do nothing. Just search for "fears" in the archive and my comments will come up.
So my question is, why do you think something like that could happen? I have a theory. If I were to subtly throw shade on Weinstein and Heying I would write they have "fears" and if people rightly came at me with "that's NPOV!" I'd be like "but it's in the source!" and pretend like MOS:QUOTEPOV doesn't exist. But hey, what do I know? Perhaps Alexbrn and co. are just not very good editors. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Dylath Leen: Yeah sounds like you're about spot on as to why that could happen: it's an ambiguity. It's easy to interpret quotations in a sentence and hear it one way in your head that seems fine to you, but not to another person, even though you're both reading the exact same thing. I don't know Alexbrn very well but he is definitely a good and experienced editor. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 23:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I can somewhat understand a good and experienced editor not noticing the tone issues and forgetting about MOS:QUOTEPOV. Still seems like a mistake too obvious to miss, considering I noticed it right away.
What I cannot understand is when the tone issues are pointed and explained, they still dismiss them and do nothing about them. A charitable interpretation of such an attitude is incompetence. The uncharitable is agenda. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

please stop spamming my talk page

Don't go adding things to my page that I previously removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings

"If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so." -- Jibal (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jibal: The fuck? That two sentence comments asking for your editorial experience towards a related article is not in any way WP:SPAM. I only added it again because I thought you'd accidentally removed it while removing other messages. Also, why wouldn't you just reply to my comment on your talk page instead of starting a new section here? You know talk pages are for talking, right? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I caution you about how you speak to me WP:CIVIL I don't owe you any explanation or any specific method of response. Now let the matter drop. -- Jibal (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Jibal (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jibal: Just don't call good faith comments SPAM and you won't experience others being fucking confused by it. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 00:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Any confusion on your part is your own issue. I used spam in its colloquial sense; I didn't reference a WP policy. This is the last time I will respond to your rude comments. I advise you to read the policy I linked, notably "Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict." -- Jibal (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jibal: Yeah well so does calling something spam that cannot in any way, shape, or form be defined as a spam, even in the colloquial sense. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 00:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
My last comment to you: tu quoque is not just a fallacy (the most childish of fallacies), but also an admission of guilt presented as if it were a defense. -- Jibal (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jibal: What on earth are you getting on about now? You're wrong in every way except that editors are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. As I said, I only commented again because my message was not a warning (which is what WP:REMOVED actually applies to, not good faith comments) and I thought you'd overlooked it. TALK PAGES ARE FOR TALKING. I still can't fathom why you wouldn't just respond to a genuine request asking for help on an article. Instead you lie and call it spam. I guess you must be having a bad day. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 01:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:AGF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks -- Jibal (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jibal: If I am correct... you are saying that FormalDude is spamming your talk page because of these edits? Justiyaya 01:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
No, not that alone ... this is what happens when someone jumps into the middle of a conversation without knowing the context. I have clarified my comment on my talk page: "spam (used to refer to annoying repeated messages; people pointing out that this is not technically spam are not helping their case)"
I also refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_restore_removed_comments
That is what I'm referring to, not WP:SPAM, but I already said that. My main concern is that I am getting unnecessary email notifications for things I have already seen, and I would prefer not to turn off my notifications.
This conversation, which I have repeatedly tried to end, only to be subjected to abuse, is not doing anyone any good; certainly it isn't improving Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh sorry, that was a dumb question... can we make the assumption that because there was no reply to the message, FormalDude assumed that you haven't seen it, and that readding messages can seem annoying, and can definitely be viewed as spam. In my opinion, you both slightly overreacted to each other's messages, and should all take a step back. (talk page stalker) Justiyaya 01:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I have repeatedly said that I was done here and asked FD to stop lobbing accusations of lying etc. at me. Hopefully he has decided to do so. -- Jibal (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
P.S. FD knows that I saw it because he knows that I deleted it. He wrote I only added it again because I thought you'd accidentally removed it while removing other messages. but that is not a proper justification. He wrote my message was not a warning (which is what WP:REMOVED actually applies to, not good faith comments but he is quite wrong about that. At no point have I claimed or assumed or believed that he is acting in bad faith; the problem is of a different sort. -- Jibal (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
That's quite fair, that's why I think you both overreacted a bit. If we assume no clue, FD had no clue that you removed the message, and went to your talk page not knowing anything, and you, based on the repeated message, assumed that it was spam, and left a warning on FD's talk page. Justiyaya 01:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Please reread my comment. As I noted, FD himself stated that I removed it. Am I to assume that people have no clue as to the content or meaning of their own statements?
I did not "assume" that it was spam, I perceived it as spam, for reasons I have explained. I'm not going to get into some parsing of whether that was an overreaction, but I will note that, despite FD's insistence here that it's not spam even colloquially, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming says or simply sending the same message over and over to the same user.
And let's not engage in false equivalence here. FD not only posted here that I lied, but even after my noting that it's a violation of WP:NPA and completely out of bounds, he posted the same thing on my own talk page. So perhaps you should have a word with him, because he is committing violations that could result in a ban, and that would not be good for Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Next time Jibal could just say 'no' and leave it on their talk page as a record. That would've prevented any confusion (and is how talk pages are normally used). It's not as if my comment had any negative connotations whatsoever–in fact they had positive ones; I was complimenting their experience and asking for their expertise. But, I guess Jibal does not enjoy that aspect of Wikipedia (considering they also removed and didn't acknowledge the previous barnstar I'd given them). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 02:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
can definitely be viewed as spam Yes, thank you. I did start this with "Please", and I stated my objection and the policy. I said "spamming" because that's genuinely how it felt to me, and I had just had a previous incident from a different user who added an warning and then removed it. In retrospect, I would not have used the word here if I had any inkling that it would result in an extended profane and over-the-top response. -- Jibal (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
which is what WP:REMOVED actually applies to, not good faith comments This is false. It says "comments, notices, and warnings", as noted in my first comment here. I'm not the one wrong about everything, but really, what does it matter? As I quoted, "Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict", and you have admitted to doing that (as I noted, "so does" is tu quoque -- "you also"). Nothing you have written here has in any way contributed to the improvement of Wikipedia. My comments simply ask you to stop lobbing things at me. Accusing me of lying is completely out of bounds, and you know it. -- Jibal (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Two actions installing a short, good-faith, and complimentary message is not spam in any sense of the word.
  • not irrelevant it was on-topic talk page use
  • not inappropriate both the comment and the reinstating were done in good faith. While users can remove anything from their talk page, it is not inappropriate to think a user missed a message and thus comment it once more.
  • not canned it was unique
  • not indiscriminate it was only reinstated because I thought you accidentally removed it due to you removing warnings in the same edit and putting in your edit summary that you were removing warnings. You provided no response to my good faith message, so a reinstatement of it should in good faith have been seen as an assumption you missed it.
  • not overly repetitive it was repeated only once
So characterizing it as such is indeed completely false. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 02:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not worth it

@FormalDude: Truly, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, it's not worth it bro. I am not sure this user is playing with the same deck of cards. Calm, reasoned, dispassionate pleas for civillity have not worked, and nor has detailed reasoning citing WP:PAGs. See this advice I think would benefit you as well. My advice is to disengage and only post the minimum necessary warnings/alerts on that page from now on, as the user appears uninterested in such discourse as would be typical for any other talk page on this site.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For something to be a lie

For something to be a lie there needs to be two elements. First it has to be untrue. Second there has to be a belief that it is untrue on the part of the speaker. Being wrong about something that is untrue is not lying. Having a different opinion about what is true is not lying. I can understand why Jibal took that as a personal attack[5]. I also see why you felt your message being called spam was false.

If they felt it was spam then it is not lying to call it spam, even if they are wrong about it being spam.

Anyway I think it best to let the matter rest, and give them some space right now. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was just unequivocally false to call it spam. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 02:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dusty Hill

I see you implemented my suggestion. Now if everybody accepts it we are in business. This kind of thing comes up occasionally when someone dies in their sleep: which day did they actually die? As you say, sources may sort it out eventually. Meanwhile, something you may not have realized when you did this: A ping only works if it is done at the same time and in the same edit as your signature. If you go back and add a ping to an existing post, it won't work. You have to create a whole new entry, like so: "{{ping|So-and-so}} (and whatever you wanted to say) -- ~~~~" Took me a long time to learn that. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

MelanieN: Ah, thank you. I knew I did something wrong because I didn't get a confirmation notification. I thought it was because I put in <small> text. That is good to know! Never really thought about it but it'd be annoying to be pinged without someone leaving their signature. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

Just a heads up the article is under 1RR. Your first edit here was reverting this edit by Springee while adding too it. Then of course you made a second revert here. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng I reworded the sentence but I'm sure that still counts as another revert. My bad, sorry. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 01:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Its a weird topic, I personally don't think I want to get into it and probably will just leave it a lone myself. Thanks for the self revert, have a good night! PackMecEng (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
PackMecEng Here's hoping I don't become jealous of your choice once more discussion takes place 😅. No problem, you too! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Helios007 returned

Greetings @FormalDude: Sorry to bother you, previously banned Helios007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helios007) is returned as Xi Xing ping. He's a sockpuppet. Here's the evidence I found

  1. Same area of edit and same claim
  1. Same citation style
  1. Even the edit summary is same - "trail of history"

— I'm new to Wikipedia, can you help me report this user for block evasion and Sockpuppetry? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, sure I'd be happy to help. You claim definitely looks accurate. I'll work on reporting this right now. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely assistance @FormalDude: much appreciated —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Echo1Charlie my pleasure, thank you for catching this. A report has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Helios007#Suspected_sockpuppets. If you want to learn more about reporting WP:SOCKS, a good place to start is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. I personally use WP:TWINKLE in order to automate the process. If you have any questions I'll gladly do my best to answer them. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 06:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @FormalDude: —Echo1Charlie (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

gossamer

Moved to User talk:180.252.123.143 § July 2021
 – 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 07:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: having an easy to use trout button at the top of your talk page. - TheresNoTime 😺 09:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

First time my trout button's been used in good faith, so you're obviously right. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 09:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm Back

No worries, I'm back. Do you still want to grab that beer? I'm buying.RaisinbranCigar (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

information Note: RaisinbranCigar is currently a suspected sockpuppet Justiyaya 00:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You're just a liar. RaisinbranCigar (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You're crazy for making so many different accounts–you have like 80 hours worth of them at least. Might I suggest trying another hobby out instead? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 03:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. PigeonFootball (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

information Note: This user is a confirmed sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 20:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dave Sharama

Why did you edit Dave Sharma's page and remove the fact he invested shares in AstraZeneca and CSL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:50f0:ef83:1f79:db17:6510:a45f (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't, my only edit to text on the article removed a part about Kelly+Partners. See diff. Also, please use the button at the top of my page to leave me a message in the proper format, and don't forget to sign & date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 08:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #480

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Portuguese version of the Wikidata Query Service tutorial tool is now available.
    • Advisory board call for members for the Web2Cit project: Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators project is moving! With Diegodlh we are inviting people to apply to be an Advisory Board member. Is this you? Is this someone you know? Check the Call for members and apply to be an Advisory Board member before August 6th!. If you are too busy this time around to apply, don't worry: we get it. You can also help us by spreading the word!
    • The moveClaim.js user script has been updated using code created by Melderick to support changing a property of a claim within an entity. Please switch to the updated version if you used the other one, and report any bugs.
    • New tool: Lexemes Party displays lexemes linked to a list of Wikidata items, so you can improve related lexicographical data in the languages you know. You can build your own lists and several examples are available. A weekly challenge is also proposed, theme of the week: Olympic Games.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FormalDude/Archive/2&oldid=1147479765"