Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Me Da Wikipedian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
TheGreatManFrom69Bc (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
81.187.192.168 (talk)
rvv
Line 1: Line 1:
== I cannot stop shitting when I have bubble tea so Here's some bubble tea for you (yes) ==
== Some bubble tea for you! (yes) ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"

Revision as of 13:23, 2 July 2024

Some bubble tea for you! (yes)

Finally unblocked! I really thank you for the anti-vandalism work. Rrjmrrr (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.@Rrjmrrr Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Lineage (anthropology)

Hello! Your submission of Lineage (anthropology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rjjiii (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: YOUR REASON HERE Avyanna.Owam (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Criticism and violent communicating skills[reply]

Please elaborate. What did I do specifically and where? And also don't mess with my user page@Avyanna.Owam Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on your course

Hi there! Just letting you know that the new stage will be available shortly. I have evaluated most answers and hope you would benefit from them, as well as the relevant feedback. I will also review your contributions and see whether you reverted pages accurately or not, and give relevant advice on them. I saw that you were given a WikiLove message, and also your DYK nom failed... Keep it up! ToadetteEdit! 16:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this talk page, you warned an ip with {{uw-vand4}} even though a 4 (and even 4im) level warning is already present and on the same day. RedWarn should notify you that after it detects 4 or 4im you should be advised to take the ip to wp:AIV. Twinkle also says that after detection. You should be aware of the talk page first and decide whether you should give them a warning or in case of a 4 or 4im report them to AIV. ToadetteEdit! 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am pretty swamped by WikiNews but will be here in a day or two. @ToadetteEdit: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next stage is available now. Find 20 instances of vandalism or other disruptive edit and recorded in the provided table there. ToadetteEdit! 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a lot...but I guess it does give me something else to do other than spam Wikinews with new articles...@ToadetteEdit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And...done but I had a hard time finding tes tedits...@ToadetteEdit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"RedWarn should notify you that after it detects 4 or 4im you should be advised to take the ip to wp:AIV" never seen that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Vandalism Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thanks for your counter-vandalism as well. @Path slopu Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

What do you mean by "And I need 6 sources there and 2 sources in the other place because one for each time. If you can find one of all 6 or 2, please add it instead"?

Why do you need six source for a very simple statement "Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter."? A single source is sufficient. Ergzay (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 statement.
Statement 1:2 attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. The two sources are each of the times. If you can find 1 source for both times, please do.
Statement 2:In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. The last 5 sources were needed, each verifying 1 recovery attempt. The first source actually didn't verify it. I have replaced it.
@Ergzay Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a source for every single attempt. You only need the most recent source as it'll say something like "this is the second time this has been attempted". Ergzay (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can't see the some of the bloomberg article since its subscribers only. I also don't see the 6th source saying that either. Does Bloomberg in fact say that? I would be happy to do it in one source if we can though@Ergzay Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In a previous mission, Rocket Lab caught a booster after a return from space, but the helicopter pilot chose to drop the rocket immediately for technical reasons." Ergzay (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. And the other claim...@Ergzay Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Thank you, though. @Selfstudier Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to further derail the RM by responding to this directly there, but I would like to share that I'm concerned with how your remark that given that this section alone has nearly 400 comments...I'm not reading through all that reflects your approach to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a battleground, discussions are not votes, and the point of discussions such as requested moves is to reach consensus. I started participating in the discussion only a bit before you did, but I did, in fact, read the entire thing. I didn't even consider adding anything myself until I had read enough that I felt like I was familiar with the state of the discussion. If you're going to participate in a discussion like this, it's important to read what's already been said so that you can actually constructively contribute to moving it towards a resolution, instead of rehashing points that have already been made. Whoever eventually closes the discussion will have to read the whole thing, so it's only respectful to be willing to do what you're making someone else have to do here by adding your comments. Kinsio (talkcontribs) 19:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "Wikipedia is not a battleground, discussions are not votes, and the point of discussions such as requested moves is to reach consensus" already. I didn't completely ignore the above comments (how do you think I knew about Option 4), I just didn't methodically read in detail through every single of hundreds of comments. Mostly because a lot of it is threaded discussion, including one reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a comment. There's more than 7 times more comments that participants. This is mostly people saying whether or not similar thing X is similar enough and whether policy X applies or not (in response to a vote) or something in that vain. Unless I plan to respond to that particular vote, do I need to read the massive threaded discussion? I understand that whoever closes it will have to read it. I am not adding 400 comments, I'm adding a few. @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively speaking you are adding a lot, to the point where WP:BLUDGEON is becoming an issue, in particular when you make comments based on no sources. I understand you are a new(ish) editor, but this is a CT and you should tread more carefully. Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do. But bludgeon would be if I systemically replied to every comment disagreeing with me, not if I had 1 vote and a few reply (and then the threaded discussion of that). @Selfstudier Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More concerns

Regarding this comment, which I feel is emblematic of the issue:

What people think is important for commonname

Not "people", as such. If you'd actually read WP:COMMONNAME, you would see that it says that what's "common" is determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. I've been trying to be as nice as I can and AGF but it's really starting to feel like you just refuse to do the reading necessary to engage meaningfully in this discussion. I haven't just been linking things because I like the way my text looks when it turns blue, you know. I keep feeling like you just don't understand the fundamentals of the relevant policies and guidelines here, so I've gone to some trouble to find pages that may help clarify to link for you (and re-skimmed them a bit myself to make sure I understand correctly as well), but you continue to show no signs of having read any of them. This is honestly firmly into the territory of disruptive at this point. With all due respect, if you're not willing to take some time to actually do the reading necessary to understand what's under discussion here before commenting, please stop derailing those of us who are trying to have a constructive discussion and reach a consensus on this article rename. Kinsio (talkcontribs) 01:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll stop participating @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

Lots of vandals on Wikipedia eh? Good thing there's always someone who reverts them. 178.120.54.117 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thank you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]