User talk:DIYeditor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Feedback on History of Atheism

Thank you so much for your feedback! I will add page numbers and be sure to clean up my wording in the coming days!! Juliaattie (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Tsamma juice

Hi. I've removed your tag as the next source along verifies the information. "Watermelon consists of 92% water, so you're getting the hydration, which is what is so important when you're losing fluids when you're sweating," Long said. "What watermelon (also) has is lycopene, arginine and citrulline, and I think those are three powerhouse elements that we really are wanting to educate the consumer on." .... Citrulline, which increases blood flow, was the element of the juice that most interested Alabama director of performance nutrition Amy Bragg, Long said. Nevertheless, I have asked for a more WP:MEDRS-compliant source on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Microsoft Store retail locations

The article List of Microsoft Store retail locations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Listcruft, don't need an exhaustive list of every location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dough4872 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Microsoft Store retail locations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Microsoft Store retail locations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Store retail locations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dough4872 01:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Curious

Keep at it ;) BubbaFritz (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@BubbaFritz: Please stop vandalizing the Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) article. What you are doing violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You would have to provide a reliable source that these things are factual rather than conspiracy theory. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

P O 2 :)

Yeah. "Vandalizing" BubbaFritz (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@BubbaFritz: What does "P O" stand for? I would like to draw your attention to WP:CIVILITY. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Reptilian stuff

I don't think that was a BLP violation, but it's always best to err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well I think to call such complaints by a distressed person "bizarre" is both inserting my personal opinion on Wikipedia and implying something untoward about that person. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammar question

Hello DIYeditor ! I'm back, but with a heavily reduced pace. Hot weather and real world problems. Nevertheless and if possible - this sentence:
"A strong connection between A and B seems to exist, in this version"
I wrote a summary with the same significance (related to the card game Bridge) - my question is, "seem" or "seems". I guess it refers to the word "connection" , and should hence be as I wrote. But just
"A and B seem to exist" must be plural ? I'm uncertain and this bothers me. And I know nobody better to ask. Boeing720 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes "connection" is the subject so that's what the verb matches. The comma would be probably be omitted unless there were some reason to emphasize "in this version". —DIYeditor (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. In the case of Multi two diamonds there are both older and newer versions. If it was a statement in the article, I guess there had been some reason to emphasize it. While at it, I read the word "whereas" at an American page. Is that spelling correct also in British English ? In the beginning here, I used "atleast" once wgich obviously was a wrong. Boeing720 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] —DIYeditor (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

on your nilism revert

how is a well thought out response to the perennial retort not useful?  :) Haaaa (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Haaaa: I had to look for the edit you are referring to. A self-help book is not really on topic for the nihilism article. Also "any idiot can..." is especially inappropriate. This would be better discussed on Talk:Nihilism if you are serious about including it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'd added a discussion on the talk page as requested. Haaaa (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Single quotes and semantic values

Regarding this edit, single quotation marks are commonly (but not universally) used to express 'semantic value'. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: This applies to the second instance of single quotes in that edit as well? I took those for scare quotes or assigning the meaning to particular person. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the second instance. In that case they're there instead of the phrase "so-called", referring to the concept, as the author refers to the idea but doesn't use that exact phrase (so it's not a quote). They're not necessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Ok, I'm fine with changing the gloss back to singles. It just looked to me like someone had a fondness for single quotes. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Trans woman‎

Hi. When I modified my support in the poll on the above page, I struck through my original post and also two of your posts asking for clarification of my original post. I took the view your comments would be left isolated without my original post. However, I've been informed you shouldn't strike through anybody else's edits (which makes sense). I've removed the stikethrough from your twp comments. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Honoring your contribution

Thanks for the message you left on my Talk page, regarding my comment at the Rfc at Trans woman^[permalink]. I wanted to commend and recognize your effort and good faith in backtracking from an opinion you later saw in a different light after being criticized for it. You've done a good job in bringing things back on track; striking your previous comment was gracious and civil of you. This doesn't mean we have to agree about everything, and that isn't my point: rather, it's clear to me you are here to build the encyclopedia, and that your efforts and opinions given on Talk pages or elsewhere are dedicated toward that end, and not about staking out a personal positions to defend by hook or by crook. I look forward to collaborating with you on this or any article, irrespective of whether our opinions on some matters happen to coincide or not; in fact, when they don't coincide, I shall pay particular attention to what you have to say, to see whether I need to reexamine my own position. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think "dog" was more offensive than I intended. I think about them as beloved but there is a strong negative connotation that was unintended. Being here to build an encyclopedia shouldn't be optional. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: To add, I really value flexibility and trying to see both sides of an issue. There can be a fine line between doing so and equivocating though - or appearing unreliable. Thanks again for your kind words. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

grammar issue

Hello ! This is an example that I've read (in our article Stalinism), but the same "situation" happens to me once in a while. And I'm very uncertain.
text:
"Maoists criticised Stalin chiefly regarding his view that bourgeois influence within the Soviet Union was primarily a result of external forces ..."
"was primarily" or "primarily was" - here is no subject to the verb. I wonder what you think here. And if the answer is obvious, both may work - or perhaps depending of something else. I would very much appreciate your input on this and similar issues, if possible. Boeing720 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to help but I am not a grammar expert. They have the same meaning to me. I don't know about rules on where to put the adverb. Try google. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's just fine. I take it as similar matters can be expressed either way. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Volta's removal from GeForce article

Hi there.

It seems you noticed the new talk page section that I added in recently and made edits based on that. Thank you very much, although I believe something can be done regarding the information that you removed, since Volta is acknowledged as a successor to Pascal architecture, just not on the consumer side (GeForce). Maybe a reference to it in the article itself or other articles like Pascal architecture

Again, thank you for taking notice of what I brought up TheFledglingLearner (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheFledglingLearner: Be WP:BOLD and make it how you would like it, or continue the conversation on the talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Friendly advice

• I was more than a little surprised to see a relatively new editor nominating for deletion a series of churches that have been around for a century and longer for deletion. (Okay, I was ticked.) A church with a handsome building that was founded a century or more ago is extremely likely to be notable. You are correct that these pages were poorly sourced. But WP:BEFORE has some advice that you really should read. It says things like, Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. and If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}.. Also, when wading into a specific topic area, such churches, it's a really good idea to familiarize yourself with topic-related guidelines and maybe look at a few AfDs on similar topics. If you had familiarzed yourself you might, for example, have been aware that we don't delete articles on the cathedrals of notable religious denominations. I know that this place can be rough, that I got pretty ticked with your edits, and that I, like you, continue to make mistakes. Bur, truly, caution is the better part of valor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: I have familiarized myself with GNG and NCORP, participated in the refinement of NCORP to its current state (which you may be unaware of), and I cited the last local church deletion nomination I made. Calling these "cathedrals" is not really accurate either, it is a grandiose word for what, in most of these cases, is not a very grandiose building. Being listed in a historical register or being designed by a notable architect are easy ways for a church to qualify. Another way is significant coverage in other-than-local sources. I was ticked as well, when I saw an editor was creating stubs for a string of church articles without any effort to provide sources to establish notability. To me that is just part of creating a stub. Certainly part of cleaning up the stub. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    Of course I'm familiar with the new NCORP; I don't think it's very well thought out. You nominated the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina) for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina) (2nd nomination). It's a large part of the reason I took the trouble to write to you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) The "Yiasou Festival" seems to be of primarily local interest or perhaps regional, and I think it is on the fringe of what could be considered significant coverage since it is only one thing, but I felt that one was not worth arguing and withdrew it myself. What does that have to do with the other noms? If it is possible to dig up information on them it's what Willthacheerleader18 should've done 8 years ago when creating the stubs - they don't show much in normal searches. And I'll note the Cathedral still does not mention the festival, after all this! —DIYeditor (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    I believe the mention of cathedral was in regards to your nomination, which you later withdrew, of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina). This church is in fact an actual cathedral (seat of a bishop) of the Eastern Orthodox Church. As for the other churches you nominated, all are historic buildings, most over or nearly a century old. It is more beneficial to tag an article as in need of improvement rather than nominate it for deletion. Also, before assuming irresponsibility, check the edit history and see when the article was created and then perhaps reach out to the creator (in this case, myself) for improvements. I wrote these articles eight years ago when I was new to Wikipedia. I would gladly make improvements on them had it been requested. I honestly had forgotten all about them until they were tagged today, as I have stated in previous discussions regarding their deletion nominations. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    Handsome old buildings. Fact is, buildings of this age and caliber are highly unlikely to have been erected by congregations devoid of notability. Which is why it would have been more appropriate to tag them for sourcing/improvement. Glad you're working on them, User:Willthacheerleader18.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    Notable buildings is one of the best ways for churches to meet notability in my opinion. Basically A7, in my view, guards against this variety of superfluous article (the worst of those I nominated anyway) that would not pass AfC. Otherwise creating articles for churches (not just in this case) without providing evidence that the article is not subject to CSD A7 seems like a kind of promotion. Churches and religions don't get a special pass to use Wikipedia for that. I notice that when there is a wikipedia article about a church, a nice box pops up on google when you search it that gives a photo and phone number. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

So my comment was removed about Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist).

You stated that it has to be neutral...

Quote : " we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view."

How is this neutral about Joseph Mercola : " who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements" and "Mercola and colleagues advocate a number of unproven alternative health notions including homeopathy, and anti-vaccine positions. "

That proves you have an agenda! That agenda is not for the people's good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilazoubida (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lilazoubida: Looks totally neutral. Take it up on the article talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey

I removed that paragraph because the source never claimed that those songs employ an "alternative rapping technique" and never compared it to alternative hip hop. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aitch & Aitch Aitch: Ok, that needs to go in the edit summary. Every article edit should have one. I revert any blanking that doesn't have a summary unless it is totally obvious why. And if it is obvious I will still tag the editor for not using a summary. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

@K.e.coffman: Thanks, and same to you! —DIYeditor (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Nantucket

Hi, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 7 January 2019. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

STG 44 page

Hi after seeing that you removed my edit on the bases that I didn’t have a reliable source I would have to point out that I used the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War 2 as my reference which is already on the references list. It states that the STG 44 have a rate of fire of 500 rpms. Acemaster77 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. Help:Referencing for beginners. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible Incorrect Correction

Hello, you removed my HQ Trivia edit. As of 3 months ago, this change to the official name of HQ Trivia and Words became apparent to the public, so in theory when I changed the name of the logo title, should it not reference the true name? (Ahajibeigi (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC))

@Ahajibeigi: You changed the dollar values without providing a source. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the usefulness of the editing template

Old dog ==> New tricks. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Kiribati and Blackbirding

Do you have reason to believe reference associated with the Colonial Era section doesn't speak to these points? If so, there are a number of potential references at Blackbirding that are associated nominally with Kiribati. While guarding against synthesis via presumed narrative is laudable, I wonder what gave cause to flag Blackbirding? Is it not mentioned in the references? Have you reviewed the cited references for either Kiribati or Blackbirding to verify, or is absence a mere presumption based on the circumstance of the editor? Mavigogun (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mavigogun: I'm the one who added the mention of blackbirding in the first place, but I only did it because it seemed to be true from a cursory investigation, not because I had a good source. I wanted to work with the IP editor who wished labour ship to read slave ship. They aren't slave ships unless a RS says that was the clear primary purpose of the specific ships that visited these islands. I have not reviewed the sources yet and we should definitely do that - I make the assumption that the original person who added the citation knew what it said over changes people make without citing that source or a new one. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Why were my changes reverted? Isn't "jejemon" and "peasant" related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisGTAGamer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on standard of edit summaries for all edits

I thank you for effort to improve Wikipedia. However, I do have some concerns.

Every business system requires some flex in the rules for normal function. That is why "work to rule" is such an effective labor union tactic. We could say, well, we should have better interplay between rules and actual practice, and keep the rules continually updated with best practice. We could say that, but apparently, that is surprisingly difficult to do.

And then there is Doc James' experience. This editor does very valuable work, in that he's a medical doctor who gives his real name. He has worked, for example, to prevent medical device companies from simply promoting their products on Wikipedia.

If we require edit summaries for all edits, where brief pro forma summaries become the norm, it just makes it all the easier for malicious and/or self-serving edits to hide.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay: Can the site’s dwindling ranks of volunteer editors protect its articles from the influence of money?
The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker, Aug. 11, 2015:

"On January 11, 2013, James Heilman, an emergency-room physician and one of Wikipedia’s most prolific medical editors, was standing watch over the online encyclopedia’s entry for a back procedure called a kyphoplasty. The page originally suggested that the procedure’s effectiveness was “controversial,” and an unidentified Wikipedia user had proposed changing the text to “well documented and studied”—a characterization that Heilman thought wasn’t supported by existing research. He rejected the change. . . "

And he later tracked this change back to, you guessed it, an employee of a company which makes devices for this procedure.

The edit summary is not going to make a huge difference one way or the other in a case like this. But if we add to a norm of non-meaningful edit summaries, in which the same pat phrases are scrolled through again and again, I think it does make it a little more hard to catch the bad edits. For we would have essentially given self-serving edits something to hide behind. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter I'm only repeating the community standard which is to leave an edit summary for every edit. Litigating this on my talk page isn't going to accomplish anything. I disagree that even a perfunctory edit summary does not help identify bad edits, it lets one know what to look for and what the purpose of the edit is. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Baba Yaga

The entry for Baba Yaga listed her as appearing in the first and second edition D&D Monster Manuals. She is not mentioned in the first edition D&D Monster Manual; she first makes an appearance in the Dungeon Master's Guide, where it mentions her Dancing Hut as an artifact and she is not statted out. She is also not mentioned in any of the second edition D&D Monstrous Manuals that I was able to check. Hence, erroneous.----Roland 14:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rvolz: The article mentioning her appearance in the game should still be linked. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We are asked to not revert an edit simply because of a missing edit summary

Help:Edit summary

" . . . Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary; . . . "

I notice that you have a bit of a crusade regarding edit summaries. And nothing wrong with a good crusade. I tend to think we here at Wiki could use a good crusade now and then!

And I don't think you're making this mistake, for you seem pretty seasoned and experienced. But my concern is, I can see how a less experienced editor reading one or two of your edit summaries might get the idea that you are. I think you do good by sending people a reminder to their talk page to please use edit summaries. But I'm less sure whether it's a good idea to mention this in your own edit summaries. Also new people to Wikipedia might think this is why they're being reverted.

PS I'm even willing to help you some in your crusade even though we might agree only 70% or so. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter You may be right. When I put "no edit summary" I mean that the edit looks bad but the editor may wish to counter with a justification. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but then again I might be wrong. Whether or not someone advances from an occasional editor to a more regular editor is maybe a 20% chance at best. With newer members I think we have to be pretty specific of what we are requesting and asking for. For example, "Please give reason if you wish to change back," although maybe that's too long, or people will think it's too "bitey" or something of that sort. If something only works one time out of five, it is kind of hard to tell when something works slightly better, and that's kind of the irony of it! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy talk page

Hello! Sorry to intrude. For the record, I didn't take what you said as being rude, and I didn't mean to sound curt in return. I simply meant that we might well just see this one in mutually incompatible ways. That's fine by me! Reasonable minds can differ. As I say, I see it as a close call, though I don't think I'm going to be convinced. But as I said, if your argument wins the day, I won't be upset. Have a nice evening! Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Ok, no problem, thanks for letting me know. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)