User talk:Drsruli

Signing

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Which particular post?
  • These ones, [1] [2] [3] - please use ~~~~ at the end of your post. starship.paint (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You are still not signing.[4] Is this a problem with understanding what you need to do, a problem with remembering to do it, or some other kind of problem? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Donald Trump, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. In other words, Mandruss's request for you to sign your posts doesn't mean that you should type your username at the end of a comment, but that you should type four tildes. They will be magically transformed into a signature + a datestamp when you publish. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC).

July 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Additionally, please consider making changes to articles in a smaller number of edits. This is rather inconvenient to review. Doanri (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Thanks a lot for sharing the valuable information. :) Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw some of the article you are editing and want to share that I support research and evidence over opinions. Just felt like sharing it shared. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: Thank you very much. Drsruli (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesus wept, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chronicles and Genesis. 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) 05:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin C Talk page

Adding a new comment to an old Talk section can be missed. Better to have started a New section. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References for contentious health topics require that the refs meet critera explained in WP:MEDRS. Describing a hospital protocol would not suffice. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bananas (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neurotic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you claim not to know the change you made at Propaganda, you changed sourced text to mean the opposite.

" In most cases, his army was actually smaller than some of his opponents'" to "In some cases, his army was actually smaller than his opponents'". Doug Weller talk 06:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you see what I did there? Do you see the problem with the original sentence? I'm not aware that I changed the meaning, and I don't need a new source to fix the English.Drsruli (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Most does not mean "some" and I don't understand how this was fixing the English. The original text said " Another early example of propaganda was from Genghis Khan. The emperor would send some of his men ahead of his army to spread rumors to the enemy. In most cases his army was actually smaller than some of his opponents". Did you check the source? I've changed this to "The emperor would send some of his men ahead of his army to spread rumors to the enemy. In many cases, his army was actually smaller than some of his opponents'" which matches the source more closely which says " Genghis Khan sent agents in advance of his Mongol armies to plant exag gerated rumors about the huge numbers and ferocity of his fighting men. Actually, the Mongol armies were often inferior in number to their opposition". Doug Weller talk 10:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that you just include the sentence " Actually, the Mongol armies were often inferior in number to their opposition" in quotes, since you believe that my change is substantially different. (I don't.) As it stands, the "Most" is completely unwarranted, and is also implicitly contradicting "some". The sentence "In most cases, his army was actually smaller than some of his opponents'" is not only bad English, but it is a significant deviation from the original text ("often" means frequently; "most" means more than half of the time.) Drsruli (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing it to "in many cases", also works. (This is not semantically different from what I had done.) (As you can see, the original source does not either assert that this was the case "most" of the time.) Drsruli (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is what I did. You still didn't give an adequate explanation for your change. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You must know why I changed it, since you changed it yourself, equivalently. The main problem was the "Most" (which was unlikely anyway, and also not contained in the original) contradicting "some" in the same sentence. (The better question is why you took offence to this.) Drsruli (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If you’d said it wasn’t in the source, fine, but your edit summary just mentioned English which isn’t the reasons you’re giving now. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It was poor English style. I said "English" but I really meant the wording, the language used. Drsruli (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calvert DeForest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Letterman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Hi. I'm not sure how this happened but in this edit you apparently voted in an RM from three months ago and in doing so restored a three-month-old version of the page, so I reverted the edit. Levivich (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. In any case, the talk page up now is current. Drsruli (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that I followed a link that another user left on a different talk page today. Drsruli (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, notwithstanding, three months later, and I still see the event commonly referred to in the news as October 7 attacks, etc. At what point is this subject eligible for re-examination? Drsruli (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The last time this was discussed was at Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 5#Requested move 26 January 2024, which closed on 5 Feb, or two weeks ago. There isn't a rule about exactly how long before someone can propose that move again, but in my personal opinion, it's some months, not weeks. It's unlikely that the reliable sources have changed significantly between 5 Feb and today. They might change in the future, and if they did, it would be appropriate to revisit the issue. But I can't say how long that might take. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dipping sauce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ground.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, 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.

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.

Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)