User talk:Felida97

Removed necessary additions to the chess set page.

Hey, you removed necessary additions to the chess set page.

Please advise the edits was made with the authoraization of (FIDE), the regulatory body responsible for chess.

Luxury chess is an important topic not coverd at all on wikipedia and is a well searched topic (See Ahrefs/Semrush)

The external link is the correct link.

Please contact me if you need any extra information.

Kind Regards, Ohad - GandalfGreyWizard. 2A0D:6FC2:6A00:600:7534:FDA6:D4EE:1DDE (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@GandalfGreyWizard (assuming this is you): Hi, thank you for your message! However, just to be clear, with the edit I reverted, you added the sentence "Luxury Chess Sets are a popular choice among chess set enthusiasts." to the lead of the article followed by an external link to a webshop for chess sets. Besides the fact that I would call it at least questionable whether this piece of information is a "necessary addition" (and that I can't imagine why the FIDE would care about this kind of information which you seem to imply), your addition is an unsourced claim (i.e. you did not include a reliable source supporting it and the included webshop link certainly doesn't support it). Moreover, not only does the included link not support the claim you made, it seems hard to think of a useful claim that it would support, a use case in line with WP:VENDOR, or any other valid reason for inclusion (given that "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" are not allowed as external links either, see WP:ELNO). I hope that clears up why I removed your addition. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh,I see. I’m no official nor I’m related to the website linked… I contacted fide because I suspected this could happen due to the linking, and wanted a confirmation which the customer representative gave with no problems at all.(it is just the only chess website I found that focuses on selling luxury chess sets, and I’m pretty sure I saw a couple of stores linked to multiple articles in Wikipedia.

if the problem is the link we can change it to a blog of some kind 2A0D:6FC2:6A00:600:1BC:8AB8:F941:7EF (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@GandalfGreyWizard: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get an idea what kind of source would be suitable. Blogs and other websites with user-generated content (e.g., Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, wikis) are "generally unacceptable" as sources (see WP:UGC), so "a blog of some kind" would not work either. Side note: I think it's unlikely that a suitable, reliable source even exists as I don't believe "chess set enthusiasts" are often written about, right? (And you would need something like that since you're making a claim about the preferences/opinion of that group people.) I hope this helps. Also, please let me know pages where you "saw a couple of stores linked to" if you come across them again. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What? It’s not about the chess enthusiasts, it’s about luxury chess sets, which is a highly searched topic “among” chess enthusiasts With no article / page in Wikipedia. Which to me seems odd. There are multiple sources I can think of who cover this topic. If the part about the enthusiastic is the issue we can rephrase it to your liking… 2A0D:6FC2:6A00:100:2C74:2907:F768:BB52 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@GandalfGreyWizard: Your original claim was not that luxury chess sets exist or that it's a highly searched topic (which is a claim for which you have not provided your source either btw); your claim was that they're "a popular choice among chess set enthusiasts", so, it very much is about chess set enthusiasts (also notice how you went from "chess set enthuisiasts" to "chess enthusiasts"; those are obviously two different groups of people that not necessarily overlap completely). If you want, you can link me all those sources you mentioned and I will happily tell you whether they're reliable and what kind of claims they would support. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Felida97 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Hi :) Thank you very much for the invitation (and sorry for taking so long to reply)! I think I came across that page before, and I think it's a nice idea! I looked at it again after your invitation and thought about what my answers would be, and I'm not sure my entry would add much (I don't think I can offer any smart or insightful reflections or even remember enough for some questions). I also don't really like to draw attention to myself, so I'm afraid it's unlikely that I'll add my answers atm (but I'm going to leave the notification of your message on unread, so I will at least sporadically be reminded to reconsider since it really is a nice idea). Thanks again! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Australian Engineering Heritage Register

@Felida97 I noticed that you reverted my recent edits, can you explain the reason? I added a link to the "External links" section at the end of the article. That is the new ‎Engineering Heritage website having the most up-to-date information on heritage markers as I mentioned to you before. Regarding the wikilink to the program, it's a duplication of Engineers Australia wikilink and does not add value. Kazemi.F (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kazemi.F: Hi, thank you for your message (and sorry the late reply; btw, I wasn't notified about and thus had not seen the one you left on your talk page two months ago; I've read it now, thank you for the explanation/context)! Regarding the one edit you're referring to here (where you removed the last wikilink from the following sentence: The '''Australian Engineering Heritage Register''' is a [[heritage register]] maintained by [[Engineers Australia]] as part of its [[Engineers Australia#Engineering Heritage Recognition Program|Engineering Heritage Recognition Program]] ...): I reverted you with the edit summary "Unexplained removal of working wikilink to section about the program; I don't see why this wl should be removed" which is about as much of a reason I can give you. To elaborate my thought process and respond to your reasoning above, I would say that while the linked article is the same, the linked terms are different ("Engineers Australia" and "Engineering Heritage Recognition Program"), and the removed link links to a specific subsection that directly corresponds to the linked term. So, a person clicking on the first link would expect (and get) more information on Engineers Australia in general, and a person clicking on the removed link would expect (and get) more information on the program specifically. Without the removed link, people that want more information on the program specifically would perhaps believe that there is no further information on Wikipedia on that and only see that there is if they happen to click on the first link (and it isn't apparent from the linked term "Engineers Australia" that there would be), which is why I believe this does add value. (If it was simply a link to Engineers Australia and not the specific subsection, I would totally agree, but then it would also be kind of misleading to link it anyway. Another way to evaluate this situation is to imagine that Engineering Heritage Recognition Program would redirect to this subsection, and we wouldn't remove that link just because it redirects to (a subsection of) the same article as the link Engineers Australia.) So, that was my reasoning, but if you feel strongly that it doesn't add any value, feel free to remove it again and I won't contest the change :)

The external link addition I was on the fence about because of its wiki character (see WP:OPENWIKI and WP:SPS as to why), but after a closer look, it seems fine as an external link (NB: regarding its use as a reference, I'm not sure but leaning towards no at the moment), and it has been added again since my revert of your edit, so it's currently listed. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

Im sorry for my immature actions 2A02:C7C:E248:B400:50AC:34B5:6AEB:2DE3 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reflection and Amends

I have reflecting on my edits and I have now realised, thanks to you that my edits were not good enough for Wikipedia and I want to make amends. I am proposing a Amend plan. For every edit l did wrong, I do another good edit to compensate for that wrongful edit. I propose you and me work together so I can make amends. For example, you can recommend me an article to check over and I can check over it to the best of my ability and if there, for example, a minor spelling error, I could fix it, bringing me one step closer to make amends on Wikipedia, Thanks for reading this. Supelrand (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)