User talk:Khajidha/Archive1

Thank you for your edits, I agree with your grammatical changes and it made me realize that one of the sentences was poorly constructed leading to some confusion. I have made some changes and would like to invite you to review them. Thank you very much hope you have a great day :) Sabaybayin (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hats off to us, we won one ... though 'twas late in the day. – Sca (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much you want to bet that the article continues in such a sorry state? --Khajidha (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never give up! – Sca (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never surrender! --Khajidha (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The URL you provided in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mistletoe_and_Wine&curid=7179069&diff=953858215&oldid=935457403 does not resolve for me. Could you please verify that it still does for you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied it from her article. Having checked now, I can't get it to work either. --Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, I've fixed your requested move for you on Talk:North Macedonian Passport; you hadn't properly subst'ed it. Hope this is what you intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Heads up, no worries! Thank you for that apology on talk:Medina. Just in case you have any problem with any of my future edits, feel free to jump over to my talk page! We'll talk it out. I have since changed the spellings to Mecca and Medina on both the articles. To be honest, I was confused as to which spelling I should use; the official one or the Latinized one.
If you wish to do so, feel free to delete our little chat under talk:Medina and help me with my GANs!
P.S. Help me with the Islam article... Let's get it to GA status.--AccordingClass (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the English names and your reversions
Look, I get it. You don't have time. But, if you are going to revert the article, please consider noting that I have added another ~3.5K bytes of data to it and that in the process of reversion, you are deleting useful information. Consider manually updating the name, or leaving a message on my talk page or the talk page of the page if you don't have time to carry out the name-changing yourself.
Also, my last edit (before your first reversion) was in April. At lease have a look at the revision log before being rude.
Regarding the titles
Thanks for letting me know. I will propose a name change.
--AccordingClass (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to move it to Alex Lee Inc. but it had that notability tag on it and I wasn't sure it would survive. If no one objects to your removing the tag, I guess the article is fine now. It seems like it should be the article on the parent company, but most of it really about MDI and I guess it's okay as is.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Some areas of continental crust are largely covered by the sea and may be considered submerged continents." to "Some areas of continental crust are largely covered by the sea and have been called submerged continents, although smaller than the usually recognized continents." You reverted, saying "Unneeded." To whom is it unneeded? I needed it when I read the article, because I had to look at the data before realizing all these are really sub-continental size. Many readers might find it helpful to have an explanatory remark that these masses are smaller than the usual continents, since the name "submerged continent" may well suggest to some readers it is as big as, at least, Australia. Do you insist that your judgement is correct, or are you willing to agree that other viewpoints might find my edit an improvement? Zaslav (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by you was confrontational. You obviously made no effort to read the sources and your presumption that another editor didn't know what they were doing is insulting. If you continue down this stubborn road -- where you think you know better than anyone else, make no effort to verify content, and delete legitimate, sourced material -- it will be disruptive editing. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop altering every article to become "Chinese Communist Party" instead of "Communist Party of China." I think you have specific agenda behind your edits and biased. 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have only "altered" articles that had been changed from the longstanding usage of CCP (which matches our page title here). Translation: if people quit messing things up, I won't have to fix them. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop EDIT WARRING AND GO TO THE TALK PAGE BEFORE INSERTING NONSENSE 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only "nonsense" is your inability to understand that "Chinese" and "of China" mean the same thing and are just different translations of the Chinese original. YOU are the one who is trying to edit against the consensus on page name and general usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are a US government agent. 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. More likely you are a Chinese government agent. Or is that an agent of the Chinese government? Because, according to your logic, those wouldn't be the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are a paid US government agent impersonating with an account. I think you should stop your edits. You are in no position to edit some of these articles. 202.9.46.101 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad acid in Mongolia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.34.214 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. I'm a card-carrying member of the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen and have been watching him for signs of treason, sabotage and cattle rustling for months. He's clean as a whistle and thereby free to go about his business wherever he damn well pleases, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha -- This [1] and many other pages of advice make it clear that the distinction between further and farther is often not particularly clear - it is certainly not as simple as physical and metaphorical as your edit summary suggests. My revert was based on "farther" sounding wrong to me in this situation - this may be related to the version of English I speak - and I thus simply reverted to the long established status quo thinking there was no real good reason for it to change. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewgprout -- I didn't notice that it had only recently been changed from further. I simply saw a change from one correct variant to another. While in my dialect "farther" is preferable in those constructions, I won't object if you change it back, considering the circumstances.--Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khajidha, no disrespect here. May be English is not your native language, I just want to point out that in standard English, America means the United States of America, we call the huge landmass comprising both North America and South America the Americas (singular noun in plural form). I have no problem with people using America to describe the supercontinent in Spanish Wikipedia, but in English Wikipedia, we should apply the English usage. 120.16.177.83 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, my native language is English. But the specific sentence in question is about the view of the two as a single unit. When considered a single continent, the singular form "America" is used, not the plural form "Americas". --Khajidha (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we come from different regions and speak different dialects of English. As far as I know, using America to describe the huge landmass which dominated the Western Hemisphere is the preferred usage by people from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries (they view the Americas as one continent, not two). I wasn't aware that some English speakers actually did the same. To me, this presents a problem, as the listener might confuse the supercontinent with the United States. I also don't like the way people call both the country and the continent Australia. I prefer to use Australia-New Guinea when describing the continent.

What we have discussed so far is a minor issue though, I am not going to make a fuss about it. 120.16.177.83 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find singular "America" just as odd as you do, but the sentence is about such usage. Not about standard English usage, but about the view of NA and SA as a single continent. When they are so conceived, the term used is the singular "America", not the plural "Americas". The term "the Americas" is NOT used for a single continent, it is used for a collective of two continents. --Khajidha (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should make a request to move the article Americas to America (continent) (aligning with the article Australia (continent))? 120.16.177.83 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because the article is written primarily from the mainstream English point of view that they are two continents, while also stating that other continental models consider them to be a single entity. --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 120.16.177.83 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha, you might be interested in this post of mine. – Sca (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for asking, but where exactly did your username come from?

Also, as for our previous conversation about lesbians, it might depend on the preferences of the specific lesbian. For instance, I've heard that some (not all) lesbians are willing to have sex with pre-op and/or non-op trans women. But maybe it's different for sex with cisgender cross-dressers. Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My user name is a variation on one of the many forms of the magic words used by the second incarnation of the Blue Beetle. As for your questions about sexuality, all such questions depend on the individual. But, statistically, anyone who identifies as a lesbian is unlikely to be interested in such a relationship. --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And Yeah, a woman who's a 6 on the Kinsey scale is unlikely to be interested in a relationship with a cisgender male cross-dresser or even with a pre-op and/or non-op trans woman, but a woman who is, say, a 3, 4, or 5 on the Kinsey scale might be more interested in some or all of these things.

As for your user name, it's interesting that it has a resemblance to Khadija, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad. I'm unsure if you ever actually noticed that before.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, when exactly did you begin cross-dressing and/or acquire an interest in cross-dressing? Are you very passable when you do, in fact, cross-dress? In addition, if you don't mind me asking, are you straight or bisexual? Sorry with all of the personal questions, but I am simply curious here. You can ask me whatever personal questions you want–within limits, of course–for what it's worth! Futurist110 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had played around with dressing basically all my life, but only really got into it about 7 years ago. I'm straight, that is interested in females. As for passability, you tell me: https://tfwiki.net/wiki/File:Khajidha.jpg --Khajidha (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you do look pretty passable! :) Have you ever considered getting facial feminization surgery and/or laser hair removal/electrolysis done on your body and/or your face? Futurist110 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I like being able to switch. --Khajidha (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, one could still present as male even after facial feminization surgery and/or laser hair removal/electrolysis on one's body and face. Just look up both Leigh Dorei and Van Burnham. :) Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for your point about Khajidha vs Khadija, I didn't notice it until Muslim editors started making assumptions about me. --Khajidha (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm surprised that you didn't notice this resemblance, because I noticed it instantly. Did Muslim Wikipedians assume that you yourself were likewise Muslim? Futurist110 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And they would assume I was a woman. Some of them were a little arrogant a d dismissive of me.--Khajidha (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't notice because I wasn't very familiar with Islam at the time. And I also pay a lot of attention to how things are spelled, so the similarity still doesn't seem that great to me.--Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question--is Khajidha pronounced like Kajita? Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how Kajita is pronounced. Khajdah is pronounced "Kah Gee Dah". --Khajidha (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced Kah Gee Tah, so close enough! :) Futurist110 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would personally like to get both full-body and facial laser hair removal once I could actually afford this. I really do want a much more feminine/androgynous body. I would have also probably enjoyed cross-dressing if I wasn't bald (I began balding in my early 20s due to my poor genetics), fat (exactly six inches tall and weighing 205-210 pounds, but with almost none of this actually being muscle), and hairy. Sucks, doesn't it? I do shave and trim my body hair and facial hair from time to time, but this isn't exactly an easy long-term solution. I want something MUCH more permanent, you know? Futurist110 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. I had replied to the OP using reply link. Not sure how my comment ended up in the middle of someone else's comment. I should have checked after commenting. Thanks for moving it to its intended place. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aunt Jemima. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please do not whitewash history. Also, there's no need to put quotes around ref names, remove refs, and break refs. Moreover, do not create long, run-on, single sentence paragraphs. I'd have used vandal4, but I'm assuming good faith for at least some of your tendentious edits.

What in the hell are you talking about? I did no "whitewashing". At no point did my rephrasing imply that the stories were not fictional.In fact, the version you reverted to says that she "had been" a cook, while my version says that she "was presented as" a cook. Seems to me that "had been" is more appropriate for talking about real people. I also removed overly detailed descriptions of the stories that were not written in an encyclopedic tone. And, while I did remove a link to slavery in the United States, there were other mentions of such in the text. As for your point about single sentence run-on paragraphs, the two-sentence version you reverted to looks just as isolated and disconnected from the surrounding text. It also leaves it unclear whether the 1991 syrup bore the Aunt Jemima name at all. --Khajidha (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you reverted some of my edits to get rid of this West Germany now Germany stuff. Are you aware of the fact that this is the same country, West Germany was just the common name for the FRG during the time of 1949-1990. The Link West Germany refers to the article of FRG during this time. Everything that is necessary is explained there. So there is no need for this amendment. It can not be compared with other cases like former Soviet republic or former Yugoslavia where the country has changed. best Nillurcheier (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the government is continuous, but the fact remains that if I look at a globe from the 1970s these cities were in a place called West Germany. That place is no longer found on globes, so the change needs to be noted. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please stop reverting before this discussion is settled. No, if you look at a map, these cities are in a country called FRG in 1970 and today, only the common English shortname has changed, also the common German. There is no reason to add "now Germany", it is missleading since it suggests that the country has changed comparable to Yugoslavia now Croatia etc., but this is not the case.Nillurcheier (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, maps back then said West Germany. Now they say Germany. This makes the note necessary. --Khajidha (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which maps. To me - a German - "West Germany" is a sloppy name for a country. I try to avoid it, as I avoid saying Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a name the person named like that NEVER used. - Normally, a simple unlinked Germany is enough. When it matters, such as for politicians, or people hit by politics, such as Wolf Biermann, we can use correct political names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English language maps. In English, "West Germany" is perfectly normal usage. As there is no West Germany today, we need to tell our readers where these places are now. --Khajidha (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think they wouldn't know that some "West Germany" is Germany? What do you think about our readers? I disagree that we have to tell them that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they would not automatically assume that any location in West Germany is now in Germany, considering the amounts of territorial losses and gains that any country goes through over time. --Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really depends about how much that would matter in context. For a singer or conductor, we don't have to teach politics and geography, and just "Germany" seems fine. Bach is named a German composer, although he lived more than a century before the present country even began to exist. It's more a cultural placing than anything national. For a politician, however, we may want to use precise names, GFR and GDR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use those and most of our readers will have no clue what they are. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still contradict. It is the same country. Regardless sloppy english naming. Nillurcheier (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like it, but it is perfectly normal English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As a longtime German history buff, I know West Germany and East Germany were in general use in English in 1949-1990, and as I recall those shorthand country names appeared on some maps at the time. I know the West Germans didn't go along with that usage, and labeled various export products "Made in Western Germany." But this is English Wikipedia. – Sca (talk)

DYK that Angela Merkel was born in West Germany/BRD but grew up in East Germany/DDR?) Alles gute! – Sca (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to you for being quite rational in your arguments at the RfC in Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus by taking the necessary time and patience to explain the obvious. Thank you. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your motivational speech for non-native English speakers in edit summary of your last change in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Anyway, I ask you to explain it with your "perfect" knowledge of English, what I had failed to explain, since you were the person who made this statement to me. İsmail Kendir (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to rephrase the FAQ. Your problem with the answer stems in large part from your imperfect understanding of English. You keep reading things into the statement that are not there.--Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it appropriate to change the answer not because I do not understand what the word Islam means in the article, but because I understand it. We should write an answer that will clearly explain what the word Islam means on the page, just like you explained to me and just like I tried to rephrase as according to it. This is the only way to avoid confusion for people with limited English other than me. İsmail Kendir (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we explain the meaning of "Islam" and not the meanings of any of the other English words on the page? The meaning of Islam is described in the article for Islam and the definitions of Islam given in English dictionaries.--Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word Islam has multiple uses. İsmail Kendir (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post to the reference desk, in defense of my usage of a gender-neutral pronoun. It is a shame that people here and today are wilfully ignorant of common usage. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your RDH post but it's been a few days so I wanted to give you a heads up in case you didn't see the response. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit at The Transformers (TV series) saying it was factually wrong that season 4 ended the series, and I should see below for season 5. The article itself says:

The series came to a close in November 1987 with the broadcast of the fourth season, a three-part finale miniseries named "The Rebirth". This packed adventure, written by regular series writer David Wise, sent the Autobots and Decepticons to the alien world of Nebulos, where they bonded with the native Nebulans to become Headmasters and Targetmasters. The series concluded with the successful restoration of Cybertron at last, but the Decepticons stole the final scene, their threat not yet quashed.

Besides, the article also says that season 5 consisted entirely of reruns.

So why was it wrong to say that the three-part pilot episode of season 4 ended the series? JIP | Talk 01:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if there was a season 5, then the series did not end with season 4. And season 5 episodes were not just reruns. There was a redone title sequence and commercial bumpers as well as new framing scenes that were set in-universe.--Khajidha (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could I please inquire as to why you just removed my mention of the local language of Cape Verde from the lede? Munci (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Good user page / article page / talk page humor. Nosugarcoating (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to add that Kentucky (where I lived for a time) was considered a "border state" (like Missouri), but that would be too much detail. (Originally, Kentucky was an extension of Virginia.) – Sca (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you seen the recent changes to the Australia (continent) article? One user has taken it upon himself to completely retool the whole article to remove New Guinea as part of the continent, based apparently on one source they've cited. This isn't my field of knowledge, so I'm hesitant to revert them, but should such a major change to the article.be discussed first with input from other editors? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

X

– Sca (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello Khajidha! In the Femforce article, I was thinking that Garganta's description as a beauty is not "utterly trivial". I would be interested if you think that about that about that part of the description aside from the hair colour, too. By the way, if you have any other secondary source that could give more substantial information on the character(s), that would be highly welcome. Daranios (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book characters (especially superheroines) tend to be extremely good looking. It doesn't seem necessary to call that out for this one minor character. If she wasn't a beauty, that would be much more interesting. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...in contrast to real-life judgements of that sort, true. Thanks for explaining! I still don't see the benefit for the reader of removing that very short, sourced description of the character, but will defer to your judgment. Daranios (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently deleted the info about the Ukrainian language in the Ukraine article lead. I would assume that this was because such things are not normally mentioned in article leads, no? If that is your rationale, then I understand and agree with it. I also believe that this article should somewhere mention the fact fact that the Ukrainian language is closer to Polish than it is to Russian. I say this because I believe that Putin’s claim that Ukraine is not distinct from Russia is not supported here. Would you be OK with me setting up a section called “ Ukrainian language heritage,“ instead for this?
Thanks,
Silly-boy-three (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Zippy Chippy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Find a source that says 30/31 or don't add it, per WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source is the fricking calendar. The horse was born on a particular date. His age increases ON THAT DATE just like any other life form. The silly role playing games of horse racing are not relevant to actual biological facts. We are an encyclopedia, not some horse racing playground. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you made the "Book of Boba Fett Characters" page. Recently I have begun merging the two pages together as it is an easier and the two shows are directly connected. The only problem is I'm not great at wikipedia special features and I have struggled very much to adjust the cast table to add The Book of Boba Fett to it. Just wondering if you would be up to do it? It is fine if not as your probably quite busy but I had no idea what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisrussian (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you added unsourced text to Sodom and Gomorrah. And are defending it on the grounds of your “better English” and that’s original research which we don’t allow. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever adding any text to Sodom and Gomorrah and my comment on the talk page is based on the longstanding text of the page which is based on the original text of Genesis and many commentaries on the same, some of which are already in the article.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t be toxic or you may see consequences. No one likes another editor that is passive aggressive and that throws lopsided insults 84.26.190.194 (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and for spotting those earlier instances, which I'm sure you're right were both made by the banned user. Not much to be done about that now, but we'll keep an eye out for further instances. He has a very distinctive posting style, so shouldn't be too hard to spot. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 09:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me you don't really differ an English language speaker from a native English speaker. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And so it seems. WP:COMMONSENSE: the most native English speaker is a posh person who is also a resident of England... (...who gives a massive Albion aura and who enjoys a serving of Earl Grey tea in a porcelain cup at 5 o'clock) It is an ethereal standard of living, alluring to many yet given to few. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what your point is here, as your first post seems to contradict statements you made at the borscht page and your second is just mocking Englishmen for no apparent purpose. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 09:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read about this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65624635 can this be added on Wikipedia? Info123.1234 (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Section link Cheers. DN (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't paying enough attention, then. The internet and cell phones alone have made massive changes to society in that span of time

Except, almost nothing has changed. When I compare the articles in the newspaper from 1992 to articles today, the content is almost identical in terms of threats, concerns, issues, and current events. In terms of technology, you can replace the words "phone" with "cell phone", "taxi" with "Uber", and "delivery driver" with "DoorDash", and almost nothing has changed. In many respects, so called disruptive innovations rely on very old business models that haven't really revolutionized or changed people's lives at all, except of course to increase inequality and concentrate wealth for the 1%. One example that comes to mind is flying commercial. In 1992, I could leave my home in the Bay Area and take the United Shuttle jet from SFO to LAX, and be on the beach in an hour. I used to arrive at the airport and get on the plane just minutes before the doors would close. That's literally impossible today with the TSA, enhanced security restrictions, and boarding requirements. So it actually takes longer to fly in 2023 than it did in 1992. Cheap and local newspapers have all but disappeared, and major, mainstream news is hidden behind paywalls. Television is a virtual wasteland of non-stop commercials, with cable still stuck in the early 2000s with their disastrous programming. Cars are more expensive than ever before, and health care is virtually out of touch for nations without universal coverage. Democracy is on the downswing and authoritarianism is on the rise throughout the world. I have been personally using cell phones since 1994, while my family has been using them since the 1980s. They haven't changed anything as far as I can tell. Sure, it's easier and cheaper to make a phone call now, but guess what, nobody uses them for that purpose anymore, and more and more people don't want to be instantly reachable or contacted 24/7/365. The "massive changes to society" have mostly benefited the very few and have negatively impacted the lives of everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Apologies if you're already familiar with the policy about warning vandals, but please remember to do so either using the templates found at the link, or with a personalized message. I've warned the vandal from Cape Verde as they've gone on to another article, but it helps to keep track of how often an editor appears to be vandalizing pages. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Khajidha, this is to notify you about the move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#Chair (officer). Please cast your vote there. PadFoot (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your contribution to presidential election. In my view, it will shape America and the world. Regarding the inforBox photo, I would like some feedback on when and how we can finialise the RfC. It started in April 2024, so it's been quite a while now, so I hope we can replace the photo. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.

Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

such as this that was removed from the Taylor Greene TP: ".... insane-idiot." No one cares what we as editors think - only what the RS's say.

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.

Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Khajidha, I didn't want to drag the thread Talk:Donald Trump#Assassination attempts off-course so I hoped I could ask here. I saw your comment: "Reagan lost over half his blood volume and was not considered recovered for six months. Trump's wound was superficial and he was back on the campaign trail two days later." Could you elaborate on why you commented this? Thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The severity of the outcome was radically different leading to differing effects on the two men's lives. And thus on the coverage here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Grateful for the clarification. A small ask, it was ambiguous from your comment whether you were speculating on the reasons behind the varying volumes of coverage or whether you were putting forth an opinion on why it wasn't very important, and hence why it was covered in less detail. I'm sure you know the issues with FORUM on that page, can you make it a bit clearer what you are speaking to, to avoid inviting commentary on a latter interpretation? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of both, really.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]