Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
Fascinating. Why was his composing debut unplanned? Sounds like a good story that should be explained in the article, if possible. John (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His conducting debut was unplanned, and if I don't hear anything else, I assume someone who was planned couldn't make it (sick, delayed). Did you read about "our" head of studies (at my favourite opera house) who suddenly - watching a performance as a spectator - ran when a medical need was announced, and had to face the question if he was willing to conduct the rest rest of an opera he had never conducted before? - Today Claire van Kampen and a hidden cat ;) - There would be more from the Guardian obit, if you had extra time ... too much just in the table, without nuance, assuming that readers know who wrote these plays when ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer, - she left the main page already, so the service would only be for posterity. - Of all the recent deaths I have watched, more people were interested right after the notice of her death than when it was on the main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Michigan Monster
hey, it has been a while since I have done major work on Lake Michigan Monster. I am thinking of putting it up for FA nomination, however I wanted to run by you first to see if all the prose is the high quality it needs to be and if there are parts I should work on. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, as a former administrator and thus obviously also a former rollbacker, you won't need the following information. But getting a permission (and granting it, admittedly) would only be half as enjoyable (to me, admittedly) without the message I customized for this purpose. So I absolutely have to. Feel free to remove it and welcome back! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
I saw you edited the lede of Die Antwoord to remove the mentions of sexual assault allegations against Ninja and the abuse allegations leveled against them by their adopted son. You listed the reason simply as "BLP", and I was wondering what your reasoning for this change was. From the sources I've found, especially those from the past five years, the assault and abuse allegations have become pretty inextricable from their reputation. It's obviously contentious material as laid out in WP:BLP, as are any allegations of that nature, but in the body, it's well-sourced not only that these allegations came out and received a reaction, but that it has been a point of thorough controversy and considerable discussion for them. LMK your thoughts. benǝʇᴉɯ16:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for not reverting. There was a central discussion (it's also linked at article talk) which was archived here back in September, and I think there is no strong consensus to include these allegations in any of the three articles. Of course consensus can change and there are always discussions to be had, but my own feeling is that, although these allegations are real, because they have not been tested in court we should err on the side of being very careful with them. That may mean not mentioning them at all. I certainly thought the mention was WP:UNDUE for the lead. Happy to discuss further of course. John (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be honest and say I don't really think whether or not the allegations have been brought up in court has any bearing on their relevance to the group's public image. Zheani, the singer who first came forward with the allegations, filed a police report against Ninja, but there is no policy barring editors from including allegations until a court date has been secured. In fact, WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests the contrary: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
There are plenty of sources that cover the allegations in depth (TimesLive article, SMH, News24 article about their controversies), but practically every article I've been able to find about them in the years since the allegations were made has also mentioned them in some capacity:
Thanks for uploading the above picture, which receives up to 1000 views per day. I thought that any additional description details may improve its value, like perhaps: location, type of agriculture practiced here, type of crop planted or prepared, month and time of day, heritage of people depicted, or any similar details. JMK (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung