User talk:Anwegmann
Please don't collapse citations
As you just did in Republic of Maryland. Doing so makes my work more difficult. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) deisenbe (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please read WP:WHENINROME. Changing the citation style of an article arbitrarily or based purely on personal preference makes everyone else's work more difficult. Thank you. Anwegmann (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have reverted a series of your edits today which to me appear to constitute harrassment based on your own strange confusion about what a "citation style" is. Your edits are not supported by WP:WHENINROME and you should desist from following deisenbe around. --JBL (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
About your changes in the articles 2022–23 FC Chornomorets Odesa season and 2023–24 FC Chornomorets Odesa season
Now more than once, you have wholesale reverted needed grammatical edits at 2022–23 FC Chornomorets Odesa season. An article is not a proprietary space. When edits are needed, as was the case at 2022–23 FC Chornomorets Odesa season, it is acceptable for anyone to make them, if done correctly. My grammatical corrections have not changed the meanings of the sentences, and they have fixed glaring and obvious problems in each sentence. You have, however, undone each of them, reverting the sentences to their previous incorrect forms. This borders on violations of WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE. If you are unable to recognize the grammatical mistakes you are making in writing the sentences in the "Timeline" section of this article, you might want to reconsider whether you are capable of continuing to edit on the English-language version of Wikipedia. If you are unwilling to allow someone else to edit a page due to a feeling of propriety over it, or for any other reason at all, please review WP:CO to remind yourself that Wikipedia is by nature collaborative. Anwegmann (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- >My grammatical corrections have not changed...
- Your "corrections" have changed the content: For example you have deleted information about friendly match Zimbru-Chornomorets played July 9, 2022. Why? Every professional soccer team in the world plays friendly matches. What is so wrong in the case? Moreover, as you deleted it you added a comment "senseless". Why this information is senseless?
- >You have, however, undone each of them, reverting the sentences to their previous incorrect forms.
- I think it is not true. I revised and corrected sentences. They may not be 100% consistent with Wikipedia's style, but they were grammatically correct after my corrections.
- Please show me an example using the em dash in a Wikipedia-article, you use by your "corrections"? I mean your constructions like following:
* any date—In the 1th round, and so on. - Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly, it's an en-dash, not an em-dash. And your revisions are neither grammatically correct nor in standard Wikipedia style. That's a major problem. You have reverted my corrections wholesale, reverting the sentences to incorrect forms. Also, your last sentence does not make sense. Please "revise" it and ask again. Anwegmann (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- >Firstly, it's an en-dash, not an em-dash.
- FYI: The en dash is approximately the length of the letter N, and the em dash the length of the letter M. If I see the lenght of the dash sign you used, it seems for me like an em-dash. Anyway, you didn't explain why you used it in the article, and didn't give any example to see an similar example using of the dash in a en-wikipedia-article.
- >And your revisions are neither grammatically correct nor in standard Wikipedia style.
- imho not true ... According to your instructions/comments, I've corrected sentences and put them into a correct grammatical form.
- >That's a major problem.
- imho it's not a problem
- >You have reverted my corrections wholesale, reverting the sentences to incorrect forms.
- As I mentioned above it's not true. I've corrected sentences and put them into a correct grammatical form.
- >Also, your last sentence does not make sense. Please "revise" it and ask again.
- Which sentence do you mean?
- Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- >Firstly, it's an en-dash, not an em-dash.
- Firstly, it's an en-dash, not an em-dash. And your revisions are neither grammatically correct nor in standard Wikipedia style. That's a major problem. You have reverted my corrections wholesale, reverting the sentences to incorrect forms. Also, your last sentence does not make sense. Please "revise" it and ask again. Anwegmann (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Mark Mampassi
The Ukrainian-language source you removed literally states he took Russian citizenship. His announcement at his current club mentions that he has Russian citizenship. You don't get to remove sourced content just because you feel like it, especially from a BLP, and in particular as it's under WP:CTOP. Continue acting like that and you'll find yourself blocked sooner rather than later. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ostalgia: WP:MOSETHNICITY makes clear that secondary citizenships belong in the article body, not in the lede. In this article, a statement is made and sourced that he has Russian citizenship. According to clear and established consensus, that is enough. Stop getting annoyed by this. You in turn don't get to make up your own standards. Anwegmann (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- From that very same MOS page (remember MOS =/= policy, though):
neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability
. In this particular situation it is relevant, as can be surmised from the source you removed, as well as other articles in Ukrainian that take issue with the player seeking and obtaining Russian citizenship in the middle of a war. Ostalgia (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)- It's not relevant to his footballing notability, because he was born in Ukraine and has only ever represented Ukraine. And, for the second time, I didn't "remove" the source. It appears in the "Personal life" section where it belongs. Stop being accusatory. Anwegmann (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not relevant to his footballing notability, but it's relevant to his notability. A footballer, as well as any other person, may receive substantial coverage for extra-professional reasons, which he did. Ostalgia (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely zero of which is mentioned even in passing in the article. Anwegmann (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Ostalgia. All current nationalities should be mentioned. MOS:NATIONALITY cites two examples of dual citizenship in the lead. And for footballers there has been a RfC that concluded all nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article. Frenchl (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bring it to WP:FOOTY, not my talk page. We can't get anything done here. Anwegmann (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:FOOTY has no editorial power. Frenchl (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, but it is a wider discursive space. Anwegmann (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:FOOTY has no editorial power. Frenchl (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bring it to WP:FOOTY, not my talk page. We can't get anything done here. Anwegmann (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Ostalgia. All current nationalities should be mentioned. MOS:NATIONALITY cites two examples of dual citizenship in the lead. And for footballers there has been a RfC that concluded all nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article. Frenchl (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely zero of which is mentioned even in passing in the article. Anwegmann (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not relevant to his footballing notability, but it's relevant to his notability. A footballer, as well as any other person, may receive substantial coverage for extra-professional reasons, which he did. Ostalgia (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not relevant to his footballing notability, because he was born in Ukraine and has only ever represented Ukraine. And, for the second time, I didn't "remove" the source. It appears in the "Personal life" section where it belongs. Stop being accusatory. Anwegmann (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- From that very same MOS page (remember MOS =/= policy, though):
- @Ostalgia: WP:MOSETHNICITY makes clear that secondary citizenships belong in the article body, not in the lede. In this article, a statement is made and sourced that he has Russian citizenship. According to clear and established consensus, that is enough. Stop getting annoyed by this. You in turn don't get to make up your own standards. Anwegmann (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
On liberian elections
I am trying to do an edit but i was disconnected Friendlyhistorian (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) I could not get it to work basically what i was trying to do was move the elections to the back before the dates but i cant get it to work Οκ I did what i wanted to do sorry if i caused any issue take care
On the position of the elections
Ok lets have it your way what are your objections to the elections being were they are ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Friendlyhistorian: It's not "my way." I originally went with your edits, but now two experienced editors have reverted your edits. So the original should stay in place based on WP:BRD. Stop insisting on something you can't explain clearly. Also, your comments are largely incomprehensible. Anwegmann (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all thats not really an arguement . Second if you go and check the other lists of african heads of state almost all of them are done in this way not in they way you edited . Also its hard to explain stuff if you are not a native english speaker . Ok listen i am not a bad faith actor ok i am just trying to make a diffrence if you dont believe what i am saying check the heads of state lists of various african countries Egypt , Zambia , Tanzania , Gabon Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm concerned about your inability to explain what you are doing and your accusations that somehow the original is "my way", especially considering that I did not write the original article and that two experienced editors have reverted your work. Your not being a native speaker is not an excuse, as WP:COMPETENCE is a central pillar of Wikipedia. I don't doubt that you're trying to help. But you're not really helping in this situation. Anwegmann (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then I will ask you this is it competence for an encyclopedia to have different style of lists for heads of states for every country . One thing that no one answers me when i ask them why when they revert changes shouldn't there be some standardization in an encyclopedia . My edits are minor in nature and have not changed the article overall i apologize if i sounded passive aggressive . But it is extremely frustrating that i am allowed to change whole articles and no one cares but when i do a minor edit on page that i have worked before and if you dont believe check the history i get the "lets discuss this" 'lets go on the talk page" Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a question for me to answer. WP:COMPETENCE relates to the ability to produce consistently correct English-language edits and "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus." Bring it up at WP:MOS. That's the best way to change consensus rather than simply making edits that get reverted repeatedly. You might want to discuss it with Skjoldbro, who is a very experienced editor with an enormous amount of experience with military and political list formatting in particular. One of the central lessons of WP:BRD is that bold edits are likely to be reverted unless a clear explanation and discussion can flush out exactly what needs to change. You are trying to change something that requires consensus, or at least clear reasoning (which, I'll note, cannot rest on edits you have previously done). Bring it to the appropriate discursive space to change widespread practice rather than insisting on your bold edits in the face of resistance. Also, at this point, I'm begging you to use proper punctuation (or, honestly, punctuation at all). Anwegmann (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair most of the stuff that i have edited has not been reverted . Now lets be honest here you disputed this and therefore i want to talk this with you . Pleas explain what are your objections on the elections being at that specific place . I already brought many examples so what is your reasoning . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Listen i will think about your advice so no need to reply also sorry if i made some grammatical errors . Take care Anwegmann Friendlyhistorian (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a question for me to answer. WP:COMPETENCE relates to the ability to produce consistently correct English-language edits and "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus." Bring it up at WP:MOS. That's the best way to change consensus rather than simply making edits that get reverted repeatedly. You might want to discuss it with Skjoldbro, who is a very experienced editor with an enormous amount of experience with military and political list formatting in particular. One of the central lessons of WP:BRD is that bold edits are likely to be reverted unless a clear explanation and discussion can flush out exactly what needs to change. You are trying to change something that requires consensus, or at least clear reasoning (which, I'll note, cannot rest on edits you have previously done). Bring it to the appropriate discursive space to change widespread practice rather than insisting on your bold edits in the face of resistance. Also, at this point, I'm begging you to use proper punctuation (or, honestly, punctuation at all). Anwegmann (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then I will ask you this is it competence for an encyclopedia to have different style of lists for heads of states for every country . One thing that no one answers me when i ask them why when they revert changes shouldn't there be some standardization in an encyclopedia . My edits are minor in nature and have not changed the article overall i apologize if i sounded passive aggressive . But it is extremely frustrating that i am allowed to change whole articles and no one cares but when i do a minor edit on page that i have worked before and if you dont believe check the history i get the "lets discuss this" 'lets go on the talk page" Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm concerned about your inability to explain what you are doing and your accusations that somehow the original is "my way", especially considering that I did not write the original article and that two experienced editors have reverted your work. Your not being a native speaker is not an excuse, as WP:COMPETENCE is a central pillar of Wikipedia. I don't doubt that you're trying to help. But you're not really helping in this situation. Anwegmann (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all thats not really an arguement . Second if you go and check the other lists of african heads of state almost all of them are done in this way not in they way you edited . Also its hard to explain stuff if you are not a native english speaker . Ok listen i am not a bad faith actor ok i am just trying to make a diffrence if you dont believe what i am saying check the heads of state lists of various african countries Egypt , Zambia , Tanzania , Gabon Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:American Colonization Society § "Blacks".
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:American Colonization Society § "Blacks".. commemorative (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)