Welcome PaulT2022!

Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know I've opened a thread at WP:NPOVN regarding the Anti-Russian sentiment article. I hope you won't take it personally, I'd just like more eyes on the content. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. — Czello 21:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Czello! Its definitely useful. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your posting to Wikipedia:Teahouse which near the start you wrote "What prompted me to write this was a Wikimedia banner asking to report to Wikimedia (UK chapter I think) examples of blatant underrepresentation of women in the articles.". You will probably find kindred spitits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. — PBS (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PBS! I wrote to Teahouse because existence of the described practices (not explaining BRD to new editors, and de-facto permitted unsubstantiated removals of other's edits) seemed counter-intuitive. Being a male with a technical background I understand the culture where they come from, but have enough life experience to see how many groups in the society, not only women, don't see them as normal. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the following interesting Wikipedia:systemic bias, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, meta:Deletionism, and meta:Inclusionism. This split was made wider in 2006. In 2005 and 2006 it was a popular hobby for academics and journalists to find silly information in Wikipedia and publish it explaining that Wikipedia was untrustworthy. With the realisation that the critics were right, Wikipedia editors agreed that in future that Wikipedia articles would need text backed up with inline citations to reliable sources. This has been very successful in removing such external criticism but it has given the deletionists more power. — PBS (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you have the links easily avilable: see also:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources

— PBS (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I had found "Template:WikiProject Women in Red invite" before posting the above I would have posted it here. So better late than never (PBS (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)):[reply]

Hi PaulT2022! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Why is Wikipedia so unfriendly to new editors?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] - no one disputes commonalities. For example, war does not make anyone better, regardless to the country, cultural background, etc. Quite the opposite. Or consider Stanford prison experiment. But by the same token, every country has its unique culture, history and people. Consider the famous poem by Maximilian Voloshin I cited on talk page of Gitz [2],[3] (written a hundred years ago and ironically, in Crimea). This is a description of specifically Russian history and Russian people, including a correct prediction of this history for centuries to come. Would anyone say something like that about, let's say French or British history and people? Of course not because their history, culture and character are different.My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @My very best wishes Voloshin writes about destiny of Russia; there's no mention of Russian character. I think you're somewhat conflating the two. Its one thing to say that people in Russia and neighboring states suffer because of nature of the state as Lermontov and Tolstoy do (and perhaps hint that it's bound to repeat like Voloshin does), and totally different to say that it happens because of some flaw in the Russian culture or character.

  English anti-imperial poetry is not too dissimilar in its sentiment or wording: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1973/pba117p269.pdf

  Is brutality of the British Empire in 20th century explained by some sort of flaw in national character? What about Mary I and Henry VIII methods of subduing their people?

  Human nature is similar everywhere and people act similarly in similar context and circumstances. Blaming a nation or ethnicity is unhelpful. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, the poem is very much specifically about Russian people who can not be separated from Russian history. You probably completely misread the poem if you think it was "anti-imperial". It is just as much pro-imperial; Voloshin was Russian patriot and nationalist; he accepts and embraces such Russia, however bad it might be (that's why Ivan Bunin criticized this poem in his Under the hammer and sickle). But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes which poem? PaulT2022 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[4] - "North-East" of course. I totally agree this can be viewed as a version of anti-colonialism (or colonialism along the lines of The White Man's Burden), but this an authentically Russian version:

This is not "just" colonialism, this is much much worse. Was Gulag just a part of Soviet colonialism? Of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes ah, thank you! I think Voloshin writes about the Russian territory and destiny; extending this to culture of the Russians is, frankly, your interpretation. But I certainly enjoyed our conversation about it and learned something, thank you for sharing this.

With regards to the war, I think its more complicated, in terms of what happens after military installations and oil refineries are hit for example, and, more importantly, what happens after the war is over. (And how the anti-imperial victory would even look like? What would replace Russia and how it would be integrated with the rest of the world? Nobody talks about it in the West, I suspect, because there are no good answers.)

WWI brought Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, and I guess many differences in our views can be explained by the fact that I'm not longing for history repeating itself in the WWI sort of way. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"And how the anti-imperial victory would even look like?" Obviously, as a dissolution of the empire, as this had happened with Roman empire, British empire, Third Reich or Soviet Empire. The problem arises when the empire was NOT dissolved or has been recreated, i.e. Russian empire being transformed to the USSR, the rise of the Third Reich, or the current war effort by Putin's administration. Yes, some commenters say that Biden administration is afraid of disintegration of Russia and therefore slow walking the military help to Ukraine. Others say he is probably pursuing a smart strategy of frog boiling with regard to Russia. And yes, one can not exclude that the next ruler of Russia will be someone like Igor Girkin. Many Ukrainian commenters incorrectly assume that the defeat of Russia will produce a more democratic government. Just the opposite had happen with Russia and Germany after WWI.My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on the "extending this to culture", one can not separate people from their culture in the wide meaning of the world (e.g. Gun culture in the United States is something specific for Americans). As about Russians, I do not think anyone would write this about Americans or Canadians:

(by same Maximilian Voloshin, Crimea, 4/29/1921). That is exactly what happens with Russians right now, 100 years after that poem was written. Why? Sure, one can suggest many reasons, but the persistent culture of slavery would be one of them. Google translate: "When Moses led the Jews out of Egyptian captivity, he led them for forty years instead of five days, so that the generation that was slaves would die out and people free from the feeling of slavery would appear. And we are not just slaves who suffer hardships, we are professional slaves who are proud of their slavery ... ". But that is not me. This was said by Bulat Okudzhava in 1991 in the city of Donetsk. Ironically, but this city is now literally an epicenter of modern-day slavery, with the entire male population forcefully recruited by separatist gangsters and used as a canon folder in the war. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discourse about two different peoples (and Russian people to blame) frequently appears in the context of the war. Consider this author as an example. I think and feel about this differently [5], but what she said in her poem did hit a nerve. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that all empires are bad. But once again, the Russian and British empires were very different, and none of them came close to the Soviet Empire. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an enormous shame to have such Russian imperialism/colonialism continue in 21ths century. I'd like to hope this war will break the Empire (similar to the events of WWI), but I do not see how, unless they will start hitting military installations and oil refineries in Russia with MGM-140 ATACMS, just as Russia hits Ukraine with missiles every day (the demands by Biden administration to avoid hitting the Russian territory is nonsense, militarily speaking). Russia can not loose the war of annihilation it conducts at the territory of another state, because the purpose of such war is just that: annihilation, and they have succeeded already in transforming a significant part of Ukrainian territories to the wasteland. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, so when SPECIFICO is flying out all these WP acronyms, I don't know what the hell is even going on. I just want a second opinion. Am I really being that disruptive here? There's these "SYNTH(*)/OR" things, but I was pretty sure I was grabbing stuff directly from other newspaper articles or from other Wikipedia articles, so I'm just chocking that up to not understanding the Wikipedia-lawyerese. Can you explain to me in 5-year-old terms what's happening? Do you think it wise that I should I just hold off from this page completely? That kind of pains me a bit, but maybe it would be for the best?

(*) With exception to you explaining the whole Nigerian/U.S. inflation thing. O.K., that helps me understand (a little bit, but not completely) what the whole SYNTH thing means. I really appreciate you explaining what's going on there.

Fephisto (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fephisto I think your contributions to the article made it better, so would be hoping this doesn't discourage you from editing.

With regards to the edit about controlling inflation, I think its problematic from the policy point of view because of WP:RSPRIMARY: articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Academic publications that aren't reviews are considered to be primary.

In this case, as counterintuitive as it is, it appears that even though there are sources that printed an opinion that increase in money supply caused inflation, they aren't saying that reducing inflation takes reducing money supply. On the contrary, secondary ones (Fortune) are saying that managing inflation is commonly thought to be independent of money supply.

So, something that'd be perfectly acceptable for, say, an article about monetarism, becomes not acceptable in an article about 2021-2022 inflation, because that isn't how the sources on the latter present it. In politicised topics, some editors get quite rough when it happens, and obviously everybody has their own biases and different degree of awareness about them.

If the reasoning behind the edit was to add more context to these opinions, I think it can be taken from a Fortune article or from the Fed website instead, which balance this approach with the current mainstream thought. I wrote more about this on the article's talk page. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSPRIMARY being the point of contention (as opposed to SYNTH/OR) makes a lot more sense to me, albeit...it's a very foreign/weird to me given my background (wouldn't citing the Fed website like you suggest run into the same issue, though?). Looking back a little now, I think what frustrated me the most was seeing Hanke/Hanlon deleted. I was just thinking to myself, "I'm quoting Johns Hopkins economists in the WSJ and even that doesn't count? What do you want from me?" So, when the Fortune citation somehow kept them in, needless to say I was really confused. I also appreciate you taking the time to explain the subtle logical inverse going on. I took another look today and I'm glad the different sides are at least present. Thanks for taking the time here. Fephisto (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fephisto, the main concern with primary academic sources is that in social sciences it's very easy to pick a few and present them in a way that would make a fairly minor theory appear an overwhelmingly mainstream one. Although OR touches it in WP:PST, it's mainly discussed in another policy - WP:NPOV, in the WP:WEIGHT and the few following sections.

Using a reputable secondary publication largely solves this problem as, presumably, a journalist or expert writing in the topic area and the editor would make sure that the balance of the viewpoints is presented correctly, and the weight of the presented theory is mentioned. The balance is already synthesized there and following it allows to escape OR and neutrality concerns.

In my view, the Fed website falls into the secondary category - at least the FAQ section I've linked. Whether something is related to the topic sufficiently to be included is a matter of editorial judgement however, and other editors might disagree. (In this specific case, IIRC, Fortune discussed the context along the same lines as Fed and using it might be preferrable.) PaulT2022 (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on Lanfranco Cirillo. Do you feel like you removed most of the puffery in the article? I was considering nominating it for Did You Know but wanted to make sure it was neutral before doing so. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley yes, the balance looks reasonable to me. PaulT2022 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lanfranco Cirillo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lanfranco Cirillo is the architect of Putin's Palace, a palace complex on the Black Sea coast allegedly built for Vladimir Putin which is estimated to have cost over one billion US dollars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lanfranco Cirillo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lanfranco Cirillo), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

As I said in the article talk page, if you couldn't find such sources, please look more closely. Sourcing is abundant to associate the production cuts with concerns of increased/renewed inflation. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of the sources I've seen is different. I also believe that the responsibility to find and reference sources lies on editors adding or restoring content, per WP:BURDEN.

It is possible that we're interpreting same sources differently: where you see mainstream narrative, I may see WP:HEADLINE or a journalistic assumption/speculation (as opposed to a secondary analysis referencing primary sources). I don't think it'd be constructive to discuss this without naming the sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. " I have removed the copied text as it was unsourced and largely incorrect." Ok, but why you have not removed the original text( from user interface page) , if you think so. I do not agree with you that it is largely incorrect. I do not agree with removing adits which are not perfect: "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required". I think that because of such practice ( removing) many peaple are not editing wikipedia, so it is a bad practice. Have a nice day Soul surfer (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soul windsurfer I have removed original research from the source page as well.

I found the following issues in the text:

1. list of 'newer programming languages' became outdated 15 years ago and some of them are not programming languages
2. none of them 'provide real-time control'
3. of listed languages, only JavaScript can 'eliminate the need to refresh'

Quoting the policy page you've linked and selectively quoted: It is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources. Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The good news for today is that that you agree that WUI ( Web-based user interfaces) exist. Am I right ?.

You don't agree with part of my edit, so why you have removed all my edit ? On the user interface page you have left some part:

	
# {{anchor|Web interface}}''[[Web application|Web-based user interfaces]]'' or ''web user interfaces'' (WUI) that accept input and provide output by generating [[web page]]s viewed by the user using a [[web browser]] program.

So is it good there but ( UI) not good on related page, which is linked from UI ?

" unsourced content may be challenged and removed " OK, but they should be removed after checkong or before. Will you start today removing all pages without references ?

I would agree with you if you improved my edit ( removed part which is good and left part which seems good even it hase no reference). What is you opinion ? --Soul surfer (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web application already describes this in greater detail in History and Structure sections and copy-pasted fragment didn't add anything to it. If you disagree, I suggest raising this issue on the article's talk page, which would allow to get input from other editors. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Web_application#wui Talk:Web_application#wui - done --Soul surfer (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we got to "yes." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I celebrated too early last year. Maybe this time we have a definitive "yes." Fingers crossed. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can propose that an editor be banned at ANI and the community could then discuss that and more-or-less vote on it. But an individual admin needs concrete justification to indefinitely block a productive editor. I've checked several diffs and have not seen anything rising to an indef—people don't properly source changes all the time. In fact, some diffs I've seen leave me wondering whether the change was correct because the disagreement is never fully examined and the topics are way over my head. The problem appears to be an inability to engage with other editors when an issue is raised and that has to be fully tested. My pinging you was a hint that you should carefully engage at Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment so we could see what response is forthcoming. There might need to be several thoughtful comments to fully investigate the issue at that article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, I'm confused.

First, the proposal to block the editor was made by you first, and only recently repeated by someone else at ANI.

Second, I'm not comfortable to follow your advice and repeatedly raise the same editing issues with the same editor. They've responded and I don't see a reason to disregard their response and ask them the same thing again. In my view, it'll be bordering on WP:HOUNDING.

Third, it's obvious from the ANI thread that the editing issues are not limited to a single article. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Carry on. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image you recently removed from Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation, File:Previsão de anexação de regiões russas por estados vizinhas feita por uma emissora televisiva chinesa.png, was added by Gondolabúrguer (talk · contribs) to several other versions of Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation has determined that the image is a copyright violation, circulated as an Internet hoax using a map posted on Reddit in 2020.^[1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @LaundryPizza03! The borders on the map looked suspicious, the Reddit finding explains it. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Business intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reporting. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]