User talk:LjL/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Generations page

There are no "precise years" that a generation is born. Who would decide that? So your argument about precise years is moot. If you read the intro to the Baby Boomers it discusses that there are no precise years, yet people persist. Also, it's not edit warring because I made or added some changes --- never going over the bright line and I took the initiative to go to the opposing editors talk page first. Did they do that? No. Wikipedia does not belong to a small group of editors. The tagline is "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

But it's not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit war on". Even if you only did partial reverts ("made or added some changes"), that's still against WP:3RR (I quote: "whether involving the same or different material" and "whether in whole or in part"). Who would decide that? Sources, of course. The "precise years" don't have to be clear-cut limits, but that doesn't prevent them from being the pivotal years. In any case, that's a source-based debate you should hold on the talk page, together with other editors (who have, in fact, started it, but once again you haven't taken part). Note, also, that not breaking a bright-line rule doesn't give you a wildcard for breaking policy more subtly. LjL (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the source (Strauss and Howe) use early 40s to early 60s. And you apparently decided to remove them for some reason. Just FYI...they are credited with naming the Millennials and have written over 10 books and it's not a source we should remove from the generations page. You brought up an argument for precise years and now you are arguing against that. Yet the article was locked (probably in part based on your revert using a precise years argument). You should have left the Strauss and Howe source in there and added or changed the wording in the spirit of collaboration. It just seems like a biased move. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"The" source? There is not only one source. Other editors proposed another source, and I didn't "remove" yours, but simply reinstate theirs. Theirs is more precise. If you have reason to believe it's less appropriate, discuss it in the article's talk page. You have developed a clear habit for edit warring without discussion on the relevant talk pages, and this is annoying. LjL (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Free speech can be annoying. The S&H source has been there for a long long time, check the history. And yes it appears you absolutely did remove it. Also, I was never notified there was a discussion going on the talk page. Now that you notified me I've contributed to it. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, where did you think discussions about article content were meant to talk places? User talk pages (perhaps you did, since here we are on my talk page)? No, it's article talk pages. That should be your go-to places whenever you get reverted in the WP:BRD cycle. And don't start with the "free speech" nonsense, which I've heard too many times: free speech doesn't mean the ability to disrespect a community's rules, such as the policies on edit warring of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't an edit war, if you check the history. So could you replace the Strauss and Howe source to the page? If not why? 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It was an edit war, I checked the history, and i could 5 edits from you reintroducing essentially the same contested material (not always with the exact same edits, but as I said, that's irrelevant). Please make a proper protected edit request on the talk page, and then I will add the material you want, but only after you have obtained consensus for it on the talk page. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Edit requests. LjL (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I feeel like you should add the source because you removed it. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because there was a contradicting source that other editors favored, and you were edit warring to push yours instead. Go through the process please. WP:There is no deadline. LjL (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I would rather you re-add the source because it was there for a long time. I've already given you good reasons. If you are an admin or employee you probably should do it yourself to be fair.2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Employee? Whose employee? Wikipedia editors are volunteers, including admins. You can check my user rights from my "User contributions". Now please stop insisting and follow the process: you're the only one to blame for the article page getting semi-protected in the first place (because you aggressively edit warred, and deny it all you want, but actual admins blocked that and other pages because they recognized you had edit warred). Enough of this back and forth on my talk page. LjL (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any problem with the redacted comment (using a line) on the discussion we're having here: discussing at the RSN Thanks! 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77: I see no substantial difference with the original, so I don't have a problem. If others do, however, I suggest you just accept to go back to the original, for the same reasons (i.e. if the differences are minor, it's not worth arguing over it). LjL (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks.

---

Sorry maybe I was talking to the wrong person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theojaspite (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

IT

Well I tried closing it but someone wanted it open. Some men just want to watch the world burn.--Loomspicker (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

You know where. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to counter-warn when you're actually the one above 3RR and I've done one actual revert, but suit yourself. LjL (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris-related business

do you have server access ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANovember_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690700413&oldid=690700288 70.195.64.5 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but when you post to article talk pages, try to make a bit of sense... LjL (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Are you on? Allygggggg (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I really appreciate your clarification proposal. That's just what we need. I hope there hasn't been any bad blood. I was just trying to bring some clarity to the situation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Posing with a terrorist name

I wonder if it is okay to have the user name Osama bin Laden! And to post: >> An individual named as Sheik xxxxx is reported to have said of bin Laden, as a "really nice guy".<< Someone is simply posing with the name Salah Abdeslam → user:Salah Abdeslam - --84.170.80.182 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@84.170.80.182: it is probably not okay, see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Misleading_usernames. But you should contact administrators over this, not me... I did what I thought I could by sending the user a COI-username warning, and watchlisting their articles. LjL (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am obviously not an experienced WP-User. Where can administrators be contacted?! NeilN want me to find the proper venue! I looked for an hour, WP is quite complicated. --84.170.89.97 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@84.170.80.182: WP:ANI is a general venue that often works (although do mind the rules for posting there). FYI, the specific situation with this user has been resolved, anyway. LjL (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It was in my post - WP:UAA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless work on updating and maintaining the November 2015 Paris attacks page. Keep up the good work! -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! LjL (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Correcting pings

Just a heads up re this. Due to the limitations of the notification system, this correction doesn't work; the user will not receive a notification. The correct ping and your signature have to be added in the same edit. In this situation, you have to (1) add an entirely new comment with a correct ping and a new signature, or (2) self-revert and start over. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. LjL (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris

Re this - so remove them, too. No way are we including the Government of Catalonia, which is where this mess began. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: why not, though? Do you have a pointer to the Catalonia discussion? We include Iraqi Kurdistan for instance. We could make a difference between central states and federal states (Spain is the former), or perhaps we could simply include sub-governments when their stance is markedly different from that of the main government, and otherwise let the reader assume it matches. LjL (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe we could just bin all the crap? Where does it end? You are now opening the door to another 50 statements from the US, to every state in Germany, etc. It is becoming absolutely ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: we already mention US state reactions, although probably in a different place. Realistically, the UK's constituent countries aren't quite the same thing as German Länder, and the fact that (say) Scotland and Catalonia have recently been pushing for independence is liable to make their stance more "independent" from the central government's than happens with other sub-entities. Anyway, if you're going to remove sub-entities, please do it fully (leaving Northern Ireland in after removing Scotland and Wales is just inflamatory) - why should I be the one taking the potential slack for removing the rest of them just to make it consistent with your initial removals? LjL (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn;t have to reinstate. I'm going to remove the entire section later and replace it with a summary. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I felt it was right to reinstate because having Northern Ireland but not having Scotland or Wales was just arbitrary and inflammatory. I won't consider it edit warring if you remove it again, as long as you do a thorough job of removing all the sub-countries (or at least have a rationale for leaving some and not others). LjL (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sofia, for last time

Very interesting why you revert all my edits in this article, without any explanation. And always in alliance with Serdik. Interesting where are the neoclassical and Neo-Renaissance architecture that dominate the landscape in all of the old part of Sofia, but are not represented in the collage. National Theatre is an typical example about that styles and one of the most famous buildings in Sofia, but not in the mosaic for Sofia. I'm dealing with the history of architecture and photography more than 10 years ago, I have a scientific publications about that and I say that this collage is very bad as photographic composition and selection of images. Because of that I create a few mosaics and use the ideas of the other editors. And many editors support my suggestions, as ypu can see in talk page. I'm not sure, but I guess you do not know absolutely nothing about the city and its architecture. Your ally Serdik even do not know which building of what architectural style is, as seen in talk page. Instead of dialogue with other editors, you both are conquered the article and destroy all different ideas. Why the photo of a mountain is presented twice, but not during the spring and during the winter what I suggest? Actually it does not matter! I know your reasons and they are only personal. Well, you win! I promised to stop my edits of this page and I leave the article from this moment. I'm out! You win! Yes, the current mosaic and the selection in this mosaic are bad, but it does not matter because you win! The most important thing for you is your POV to win! You are who can to impose a censorship on this article. Stupid artists like me are not needed! Nobody believes in Wikipedia because of people like you, but the important thing is to impose your point of view, even by force methods. You want to remove me from the article, but I leave it from now. You win! I hope you are happy! Goodbye!--Stolichanin (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Do not make false claims: I gave you a long, detailed explanation. I'm not even reading the rest of your blurb above. You were indefinitely blocked, and only unblocked because you promised to stop reverting. Yet you did it again. You should be glad I'm not reporting you again. LjL (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Abdelhamid Abaaoud article

"Before we towed jet skis, motorcycles, quad bikes, big trailers filled with gifts for vacation in Morocco. Now, thank God, following God's path, we're towing apostates, infidels who are fighting us."

the See also links are altogether appropriate, yes or no? Aikiangelos (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: no. Instead, those terms should be Wikilinked within the quotation itself. Additionally, in "See also", you should usually refer to the linked article directly, not pipe it into things like "an apostate" or "an infidel". LjL (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pssst. WP:SEAOFBLUE. "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Uhm, I find that a peculiar policy, but I stand corrected. In this particular case, seeing those terms in "See also" would definitely make me scratch my head, from a layman point of view, though. LjL (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"...pray that Allah will break the backs of those who oppose him..." Aikiangelos (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: what's your point with that? You aren't threatening me, are you? LjL (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The quote shows as I was indicating because of the following; the comment shows implicitly (not explicitly) he considers Allah is male. You're confusing the comment of Abaaoud lacking a direct explicit reference to the apparent gender of Allah, with something which doesn't show his awareness of a gender. His comment infact shows absolutely he considerts Allah to be male. I wasn't threatening you. Aikiangelos (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: Okay (some context might help when messaging). See, this is what Wikipedia calls original research: you're making an implicit interpretation of a quotation, and drawing explicit conclusions. That is not allowed on Wikipedia; instead, a reliable source needs to have drawn that conclusion for you, and you need to cite that source, instead of just using your personal logic. By the way, it would be better to discuss these issues on the article's own talk page, where other editors can see and take part, instead of here. LjL (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

good talking to you, maybe we will work together again another day, idk. Merci (thanks) Aikiangelos (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, it is better to have the other photographs also, than not, because, why shouldn't they be included? It is good to see other images, the image from the front-cover of Dabiq is a strong image, it is interesting, why rely on just one image? Does one image ever show a person so fully as 2 or 3? If people want to understand as fully as possible, then relying on one source isn't a reliable situation. Aikiangelos (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aikiangelos: "Why not?" is not a good rationale for adding something. The article is not a place to celebrate this individual's image, for a start. One indication of what he looks like is more than enough (perhaps actually more than enough, since that image is copyrighted and arguably not suited for inclusion). There is nothing to "understand" about seeing several mugshots of a terrorist.

On the other hand, there are policies on Wikipedia for what external links should not contain: in our case, they should not contain "any site that does not provide a unique resource", so if we already have one picture, that will be enough and external links should not be provided. LjL (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit problem, November 2015

Hi LjL (Re: Latest revision as of 21:07, 20 November 2015 ( Read talk page, Peter. You basically just changed the article back into what it was, except while breaking things in the process.)

I don't know what is going on with that paragraph. (final paragraph re Perpetrators). Every time I view it as READ, extraneous words and two citations appeared after the final sentence. I removed all of the paragraph, posted it into WORD, checked it and the extraneous words and citations did not appear. I made no changes and then simply re-inserted the paragraph. But the extraneous words and two citations still appeared. But I just checked it in READ now, and that is all gone. (I have no idea how that happened or who solved it, but I appreciate the help. Cheers! Peter K Burian 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: what had happened is that there was a wiki comment in it but you had removed the ending, so it swallowed an entire section. But anyway, that is the least of the issues here. Please check the article's talk page, where I have repeatedly tried to write you. You have repeatedly restored sections that you thought were "deleted", but they were never "deleted" (except one), they were simply edited. The one that was deleted was deleted because it was plagiarized from a newspaper, you shouldn't do that. Please reply on the article's talk page, and do look at the edit history! It's not too easy to follow, but neither is looking after your edits which definitely messed up things a bit now. LjL (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I have found your notes on the Talk page now and replied. I am struggling with some aspects of Wikipedia, as I explained there. Peter K Burian 21:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sanctions template

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous at this point. I'm not even supposed to be here today, but for that the 18 November aviation strike delayed my wikibreak. The whole WP:1RR idea whipped up by WP:Arbcom has been an abject failure; it just lets more committed POV pushers (who somehow get to ignore WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE, with complete impunity) do their thing. But ArbCom found a hammer, and so every civil war looks like a nail.

But, oh well. Illegitimi non carborundum; don't let the WP:JANITORs get you down. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Call me dense, but could someone explain sanctions to me? Are there several types of sanctions? Peter K Burian 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers

Hello, LjL. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@MyMoloboaccount: Hi, were you trying to tell me something? Is there another talk page I have to look at? LjL (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

LjL : Thanks for putting up with my posts indicating that "entire sections had been deleted" (and for finding where they were moved to ... that is still difficult for me on very long articles or when the content is moved to another, related article). And thanks for the general guidance and help you have provided on the November 2015 Paris Attacks and the related Reactions article. (I have a lot of experience as an Editor of print magazines, but that is very different in format.) Peter K Burian 02:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR on reactions

I do believe you've just broken 1RR on the article. Since the sanctions do apply to it, you might want to self revert. Volunteer Marek  21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR on what? Why does 1RR apply? And how does it apply? Eg: what if someone reverts two different people who made completely different edits? What if it is vandalism? Etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have self reverted, but as you can probably see, I'm not getting scared and shutting up about your bullying. I have a battleground attitude? Look at yourself and your bullying already. LjL (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Call me a newbie but I don't even know what a 1RR is. Peter K Burian 21:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: I'm a bit busy with trying to avoid getting in trouble for things I didn't do at the moment, but check WP:3RR. 1RR is like 3RR except after one edit instead of three, and it is in place on certain articles about certain topic that certain people have decided are "sensitive". LjL (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: thanks; got it. Peter K Burian 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: the ping is simpler than what you've tried, you just have to type {{ping|LjL}}, but anyway, pinging me on my own talk page is rather pointless, as I'm going to be notified about the message anyway. It's more useful on other talk pages. LjL (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just want to get the format right for when I do need to use it. ping|User:LjL with the brackets seems to work fine, and easier than nowiki>@LjL:</nowiki. Peter K Burian 15:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: ... you don't have to type the "nowiki" parts. Those were for me to make the command show up as plain text instead of actually executing it. What you should type is ping with the brackets but without "User:". LjL (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Man, this entire HTML coding is complicated.

@Peter K Burian: actually, it's (mostly) MediaWiki code, which is almost completely unrelated to HTML. LjL (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting ... but some of it is HTML like the method for making something bold, underlining, etc., for example. Peter K Burian 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: As I said, "mostly". However, the major features, like bold, are not normally done using the HTML method, but using the Wiki method (three apostrophes two apostrophes is italic). LjL (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, LjL if it can be done with HTML I do it; I don't have much HTML experience, but I have some while MediaWiki is all Greek to me. Peter K Burian 02:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Italian

(moved from a talk page where it was not on-topic)For that matter, I speak Italian too, which I'm sure they've seen from my user page (I might remove that user box because of incidents like this one); it's not the first time I've noticed that sometimes some Italians think that by code-switching to Italian they can, I dunno, perhaps feel "tougher" or "closer" (in a positive but also often negative way) to me. It's quite annoying and I wish they did not do that. I don't think it speaks well of them, at any rate. LjL (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hi! I didn't think to check your page to see if you also spoke Italian. (I used to have the language boxes on my page, but that was because I was open to translation requests, and I don't really have the time to translate entire pages anymore.) I think I assumed that the switch to another language would be to put a non-speaker out of their depth, but of course it could also have an intended effect on a speaker. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I will remove those user boxes. They are not useful for anything aside slight bragging, while they are detrimental when characters like that individual come along. LjL (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference!

That janes.com link about the Su-24 radio was timely and allowed us to move forward on this issue. Very appreciated! Observer31 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to Paris attacks

Hi, just curious why you apparently did not restore the One WTC image. The reason User:Herve Reex gave for deleting that and the Prague image was formatting, which I pointed out could have been better handled differently on their talk page [1]. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I didn't notice it. I did a manual revert instead of automatic so that I could change the location of the image from "left" to "right", and I apparently missed the other removal. LjL (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing COI editors at Talk:English Democrats

Hi LjL, just a quick message - I don't think putting "see admission and threats" is a good idea, maybe just "see admission"? Just a thought -- samtar ^whisper 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

hello!

passing by to say hello! btw, i saw your edit on the user Shenme about a ANI. was curiosu about that.

anyways, how to tag someone? just out of curiousity and not related to what i said above.Winterysteppe (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe: hi; by "tag", do you mean "ping" like I just did? You can type {{ping|Username}} to do it. I haven't filed a report against Shenme, but against an editor who disrupted several articles that Shenme helped restore. LjL (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: i think i got it now. haha.

Yep, that worked! (although it's unneeded on my own talk page, as I'll get notified anyway) LjL (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added my comments at AN/I

I've added my comments at Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid. Nothing that will draw any immediate action, but drawing attention to the long-term, misdirected nature of the bad editing, and waiting for the usual eventualities.

Today I was trying to describe my worries for WP to someone, and came up with this. Remember when everyone suddenly realized that public statues were slowly melting away, and that monuments and buildings of limestone and marble were being disfigured? Even copper roofs and bronze statues were eroding far too quickly. And all because they had been thrust into a corrosive atmosphere of nitric oxides and sulfur oxides and more.

Effect of acid rain on statues

Wikipedia is in a corrosive atmosphere, with random vandals combining with idealogical vandals combining with political and corporate interests to erode pretty much every article. I don't believe an effective solution has been found yet, though *many* have been proposed. Have you seen anyone else use the terms 'corrosion' or 'corrosive' anywhere around here? As it is, there is a continual fear of what will happen next. Shenme (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shenme: and you can try to add some cement to the statues, but as long as the water keeps flowing... I try to remove another large amount of unencyclopedic material (a substantial portion of an article made up of verbatim hadiths, really?!), and I get randomly reverted by a user who probably only cares about annoying me, because we have some unrelated "history". So it is. LjL (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi, can you please take care/close the WP:AN, I am getting the heebie-jeebies about the other guy continuing to post and stalk me on that page. I seriously don't know what is going on and what he's talking about a week old post that he didn't like. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Sorry, I'm not an admin and given I've taken part in the discussion a lot, I don't think I can close it properly. I don't even know who's "ultimately" at fault given there seems to be a long-winded history being brought up, but at least, I can say the other people sound like bullies. LjL (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: For the record, I think your latest message might be taken the wrong way by admins. I understand you're probably at your wits' end, but it sounds like a personal attack, calling him delusional and so. LjL (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed that. But I don't want to open up an AN for him because I don't want to deal with him. I just want him to stop stalking me and stop dealing with me. This was over a week ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A question

What do you think about Istanbul regarding the recent disputes?Sevt V (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sevt V: didn't I mention it? It's one of those cases that was brought up to compare it to Plovdiv, but I simply don't think it compares, because Google Books shows that Constantinople is still the leading term for the city in English sources, by a fair margin over Istanbul, albeit declining (I'm less sure about keeping Byzantium in the lead line). LjL (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, that Google Books is a reliable proof. See WP:EN#Divided usage in English-language sources:Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another. I don't know whether Constantinople is used in English in any other context except hisotircal, now.Sevt V (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Google Books N-Grams search is not exactly a search engine. It searches a semi-vetted corpus of literature in time. I don't know if the prevailing context for "Constantinople" is historical, but historical context is a perfectly valid context too, and if "Constantinople" actually prevails overall over Istanbul in (even current) literature, I find it very hard to argue against its inclusion. LjL (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar

Hello LjL,

Please reconsider based on my responses at ANI. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hi. It seems reasonable to re-add the "external link" since an IMDB page about him does, after all, exist, but do you think we should also re-add the in-body mention of his being an actor, since your previous stance was that his role as that was of no notability? LjL (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

He is not notable as an actor, and based on only the acting, if he was not a criminal, we would not have a page on him. Therefore, I oppose any language that implies that his acting is comparable to his criminality, and that he is notable for two roughly equivalent reasons. On the other hand, his minor acting roles are verifiable and are standard biographical details. I think the acting should be mentioned, giving it due weight.

Comisar is devious, tenacious and has plenty of spare time on his hands. He is determined to create a more positive online identity before his 2018 release from prison. Expect much more of this from him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I have added the details back. I didn't put them in the lead where you originally placed them because in my view that would have been WP:UNDUE, while they can be part of his overall "career" as a footnote (I had to change the heading of that section for it to make sense). LjL (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and please consider keeping an eye on the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's in my watchlist, I will. LjL (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

see my solution at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_25#Germanic_peoples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_25#Germanic_peoples 95.128.118.58 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks, the tally currently stands as delete:17, keep:9 and merge:1, with 3 days remaining. This AfD is important because, as has been pointed out, people have been slipping in lists and tables of victims into other articles about mass-casualty events. Should this AfD close with a consensus for deletion, I think it's important to extend this consensus to all articles containing such lists, (as already required by wp:notmemorial, wp:bio1e, wp:blp, wp:list, wp:victim, wp:oneevent, wp:undue, wp:n, np:notnews, wp:indiscriminate, etc., etc.) After the conclusion on this AfD, perhaps an effort should be made to have more definitive wording added to WP:NOT to specifically address these random lists of victims? As you started this process, I thought I would see what your thoughts are on this. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL is clear enough, especially given its origins, but given there are some WP:IDHT folks around, yes, perhaps it should state "List of non-notable people who died in mass-death incidents are inappropriate for Wikipedia". Changing policies is a tricky process though AFAIK, and even in the AfD, while I think 17 vs 9 is pretty clear, it's not so striking that there is zero risk someone won't have the bright idea to close it as "no consensus" (especially when seeing the lengthy debate on the page, although it's mostly all coming from... one person). LjL (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that changing wiki-policy is very, very difficult. But I'm looking more along the lines clarifying already established policy, not actually changing it. And it would be for the very purpose of shutting the IDHT edit-warriors who persist in "interpreting" the policy and/or relying a OSE. I think the line you suggested above would do just fine. - ^theWOLFchild 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for clearing up the vandalism on my page by Villano MMIV. If you don't mind me asking, which blocked user do you believe they were a sock of? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: This one, which was doing the same sort of vandalism at the same time, and which must be in turn a sock of various sock users starting with "Jabberwock", but I'm just basing that on the names. LjL (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I must have reverted them somewhere... GAB^Hello! 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sofia

You may be interested. One day after the semi-protection of Sofia had expired a new account(registered today) along with two IPs are repetitively trying to do this again [2] and further image changes that are essential and nothing new for the article(not indicating that these are new users). They even discuss on the talk page the introduction of some images by the same uploader. One of the IP has the same contributions [3] as a persistent edit-warrior's edits[4] at Bulgarians article who seems to could not have waited for the semi-protection to expire in order to attack the article with new image changes. Before it was about the introduction of a view of a mountain excluding the city, now it is about an inclusion of some girls that are not even from Sofia or have anything to do with Sofia in one of the sections. Quite funny isn't it? Editing here is anything but not boring. I don't know what to think of this[5] and this[6]? I hope you laughed at the new nonsense. I am very tired to fill reports of the "new" user Vargala and the IP 151.237.102.118 which he acknowledges[7] is his at WP:AE for their 3RR violation today. I am also very confused where to start explaining all this, at the edit-warring noticeboard, at the sockpuppet investigations or at the semi-protections. As you are familiar with the case, I find the easiest way to be explaining all on your talk page first. Cheers.Serdik (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)