User talk:Nerdy Felix 16

J. R. R. Tolkien

Hi,

I have reverted your recent edit to J. R. R. Tolkien and have detailed the reason on the edit history of the article.

If you have any questions please let me know on my talk page.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

Mass changes to nationality

Why are you changing articles from "British" to "English"? In some cases this is contentious - nationality is not necessarily determined by birthplace, and legal nationality in the UK is "British". There has been much discussion over this in the past - see, as a starting point, WP:UKNATIONALS - and your changes are likely to be reverted if you cannot demonstrate a consensus for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a matter of fact, I made edits on the basis of the general notion that a person born, lived, educated and working for the interest of a particular country belongs to the country. There are an uncountable number of instances where UK citizens of all kinds and profession have been titled according to their respective country such as England, Scotland, Wales and even Northern Ireland, which does not even has an official recognition as an independent country under the aegis of the United Kingdom, (at least the Wikipedia page for Norther Ireland says this). So, what about all those arbitrary assignments of nationalities on a massive number of Wikipedia pages? And how am I supposed to cite a difference between British and English? Why are you specifically targeting my edits on particular Wikipedia pages? I did change the nationality of people on certain Wikipedia pages, but I never stated or try to endorse that being English is not being British. If this is not appealing to your common sense, I am afraid nothing would be. Vehemently categorising my normal corrections as "vandalism" and reverting them is outrageous and discriminatory. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone is specifically associated with one or other of the four countries, you should use "British" as that is their legal nationality. The exceptions would include people who played for a team such as England; people who are associated with one of the devolved legislatures like Scotland; or people who have specifically associated themselves, in reliable sources, with one or other of the four countries. Also, because these questions can be contentious, it is always better to raise the question on the article talk page first, to see whether other editors agree with your proposal. It was clear that, on several articles, you had not done that, and in cases like that it's usual practice to check an editor's other edits as well. You state that you have followed "the general notion that a person born, lived, educated and working for the interest of a particular country belongs to the country" - but, firstly, that is highly debatable; and, secondly, you haven't done that, for example describing people who are part of the UK government as "English". People's place of birth is only one factor and is not always very important (for example, John Prescott was born in Wales but he was a British politician; and David Lloyd George was born in England but clearly associated himself with Wales). As a general rule, it's best not to change a person's nationality from that which has been established in an article for many years - they are very rarely "arbitrary". And I have never described any of your edits as "vandalism". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I get it. I will be clear and careful about the edits I make next time onwards, especially when they are related to controversial or highly debatable issue. I have a relatively new editing experience with Wikipedia. So, I believe this suggestion would be helpful to me. And to clarify, I, by no means desired to create any form of nuance by changing nationalities, I was unaware of the related complexities revolving around that issue. So, thank you for your generous advice. I hope it will help me in the future. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Jenny Harries. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"? Absolutely ridiculous. Have a sense of rationale and sobriety in your words. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Despite saying you get it in response to "As a general rule, it's best not to change a person's nationality from that which has been established in an article for many years - they are very rarely "arbitrary"." The last three changes you have made to profiles appear to be based on non British sounding names with no reference provided to justify changing or adding a nationality. If you are unable to cite references, the changes will be reverted. (Epiedits) 19:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Freddie Mercury. You've been warned Special:Diff/1059294025 - FlightTime (open channel) 16:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After all these warnings, the user still insist on changing article subjects' nationalities to what this user thinks it should be, this is way beyond disruptive. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Hectics. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptively rejecting community concerns repeatedly voiced on this page here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Idries Shah. You need to stop repeatedly changing "British India" to "India" and "British-Indian government" to "Indian government" in articles. See also Ikbal Ali Shah. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neville Armstrong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani. 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) 06:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

I'm rather concerned that you still appear to trying to obliterate mention of the British Raj and British-Indian nationality (which are historically accurate) across a great many wiki pages (see mainly deletions), in spite of a recent block. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An example is Sadiq Khan (diff), where you changed "British India" to "India".

Another is Ken Aston (diff), where you changed "British Indian Army" to "Indian Army".

A third is Campbell Claye Grant Ross, (diff), where you changed his allegience from "British India" to "India".

A fourth is Mahmood Mamdani, (diff), where you changed "Bombay Presidency, British Raj" to "India".

Some of the changes to Parsi-related content are also questionable. For example, Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, (diff), where you removed mention of "Parsi" and replaced it with "Indian".

In many cases, the editors involved in writing and maintaining these pages may well have a better knowledge of these issues than an editor just "passing by" the articles at random. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Not-so-intelligent, In case of Mr Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London), the minor edit I did was absolutely correct. After the partition of India in 1947, Lucknow (from where Khan's parents emigrated) became a part of the Dominion of India (which is not British India, mind you, for British India was divided into two separate dominions in 1947), and the capital of its northern province of United Provinces. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Mahmood Mamdani, the actual country of his birth is India, for the British Raj was no country or state, officially, the country was called British India or simply India. So that was an absolutely ridiculous description. That deserved being changed for clarity. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinshaw Edulji Wacha was a member of the Indian National Congress, he was born, lived and died in India. So, what is the logic behind describing him as a "Parsi politician"? What does his religious or ethnic background have to do with his nationality? India is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state. That's like calling Mahatma Gandhi a "Hindu politician", or Donald Trump a "Christian politician". Seriously ridiculous. Makes no sense at all! Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Sadiq Khan, "from what had been ..." British India is implied by "... following partition", though it could be expressed rather than changing British India to India. Use of the wikilink to British India is also perhaps more informative in this and many other articles (as are things like "Irish-born ..." removed from another edit. The description of a subject is not limited to their nationality and occupation alone).

Many people self-identify or have been identified as Parsi, and I don't see that "Parsi politician" is any different from common expressions such as "Hindu nationalist", "Muslim fundamentalist" or "Christian Conservative". Again, the description of a subject is not limited to their nationality and occupation alone. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be aptly termed a "Hindu extremist", an "Islamic fundamentalist" and the like if they have led, or at least actively participated in, extreme religious politics from the side of a particular religion; like the member of an extremist organisation, or a religious nationalistic movement, and so on and so forth. Well, clearly that is the general norm in these cases. Merely the personal religious beliefs or background of a politician are not enough to associate him solely with a particular religion. Are there any records or citations that objectively prove Me Dinshaw Edulji Wacha participated in radical Parsi or Zoroastrian political circles? No. Was he an explicit member of the Indian National Congress? Yes. Did he engage himself in the politics of pre-partition India? Yes. Did he live in India? Yes. Even if he did personally identified as a member of the Parsi community or practice the Zoroastrian religion, does that overtake his association with Indian politics? Simply no. Thus, my edits were justified. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, on a side note, my esteemed fellow Wikipedian, please allow me to ask for a clarification on your noble "editors", their identities, their credentials objectively proving them superior, their reasons for making those particular edits for which you have so politely called me out, and the exact faults with my minor rational corrections. For in your eyes, I, as an incorrigible "passer-by", am completely ineligible to make Wikipedia edits. Thank you. Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I take your points. I'm just saying that we all need to take care. For example, when searching for articles contain the term "Parsi", with a view to possibly adding the word "Indian", errors can crop up, such as:

In Nina Wadia, you added the word "Indian": "Like Wadia, Mirza is an Indian Parsi", (diff). The composer, Raiomond Mirza is, however, Canadian. Elsewhere, you changed "Persian" to "Parsi", a simple mistake that was reverted with a note that the source says "Persian".

And I'm not sure that the following (hunting for mentions of "British India[n]") comes under the heading of "minor rational corrections":

Rao Farman Ali, (diff), was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as "vandalism" and reverted.

Anyhow, peace. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declaring that an Indian ethnoreligious Zoroastrian group with distant Persian ancestry cannot be described as "Indian", even if given the context that "Indian" is merely referring to origins, not nationality. Parsi people are a group of the Indian subcontinent, with origins in ancient Persia. I didn't mean a citizen of the Republic of India, when I added "Indian", nor did I remove anything vital from the article in case of Nina Wadia's article. And for that matter, I was completely unaware that Raiomond Mirza is a Canadian citizen, for nowhere was that stated in the article, nor in any note or reference. And, as I said, I wasn't referring to his nationality, merely his accurate ethnicity. Although, I admit that such edits have a high potential to cause grave confusion, so it is only justified to revert them, that's alright. Nonetheless, I highly question the authenticity of the source where "Persian" and "Parsi" are equated, can you please state explicitly and more clearly to what edit are you referring to? Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strange that the validity of a claim of "vandalism" is being decided upon by the mere "perception" of the editor. Please back your claims with an evident reason. Also, I see that you've still not responded to my query regarding your greatest and esteemed "editors" working on those articles, and where I, as a treacherous infidel "passer-by" went wrong. Is it because, please pardon my inquiry, all of them including you are "passer-bys" as well? :) Nerdy Felix 16 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saira Shah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

This has been brought to your attention before and I will bring it up again---> You need to stop repeatedly changing "British India" and other links to "India"[1][2][3][4]. See: Template:Infobox person re: Use the name of the birthplace/death place at the time of birth/death. Also some of the instances of India you are linking didn't exist in that context. You should also use edit summaries or talk entries to explain some of your other edits, they seem non-constructive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Your edits today have, with one exception, not been constructive. If you keep making changes to nationalities that violate the Manual of Style, you will be blocked, especially if you offer no explanation in an edit summary or on a talk page for the edits. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted another recent unexplained edit in the lede sentence of Hindi–Urdu controversy that changed colonial India to India. Surely the former is correct for the time (19th-century), and is also more informative? 151 entries showing edits reverted or manually reverted out of the last 500 edits would suggest something is amiss. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]