User talk:NewEnglandYankee

chapathi

there's an equally large amount of more accurate references that use the proper spelling of chapathi.

chapathi is pronounced with a soft T like in 'thing' or 'thin'. not with a hard T like in Tea.

i'm not sure how to do a page title change, i'd love for that to happen. if you can get the ball rolling that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

not a 'heaven sent' anything, but more of a proper spelling that preserves proper pronunciation/transliteration. after all it isn't an english word and has a proper accurate pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Thanks for fighting bias from both sides! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:A980:3E80:B5F0:539E:C0B1:A661 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References for Mihrab Article

Hello NewEnglandYankee!

I am writing in your in reference the following message; "I'm NewEnglandYankee. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mihrab, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As a rule, the burden of proof is on you in cases like this. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)"

I actually added the following 6 references to wikipedia article during my original edit. Did you miss them?

DR. F. Ruhe

1-The Ostia Mithraea: An Introduction to the Cult of Mithras.

   brewminate.com/the-ostia-mithraea-an-introduction-to-the-cult-of-mithras-and-tour-o...

2- Cumont, F. The Mysteries of Mithra. Trans. T. J. McCormack. London, 1903, reprint

   New York, 1956

3- Renan, E. Marc-Aurèle et la. fin du monde antique. Paris, 1882.

4- JDStone. Mithras= Christianity. - jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

5- Hugh Fogelman. Christianity uncovers: Viewed through open eyes. page 33

6- Celebrating Yalda Night - Iran Review. www.iranreview.org › Iran Review › About Iran › Iran's Heritage — Preceding unsigned comment added by DR. F. Ruhe (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @DR. F. Ruhe: The sources you're providing are inferior to those already present. "The Mysteries of Mithra" looks like it fails WP:SPS. brewminate.com and jdstone.org seem to fail WP:RS. You also seem to have a specific point of view on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

student ownership

Hi NewEnglandYankee, I deleted the content because I actually posted the content. The problem was that this is for a grade in my class and somehow it didn't get linked with the class so I wouldn't get a grade for it. I'm trying to link my wikipedia with the class so I can repost it. Thanks. I'll delete it again. -Unbiasedpanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpanda (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your Removal of Killy

Killy has gained a large following online with the music video for his song “Killaminjaro” garnering over 15 million views on YouTube. He’s definitely a notable Canadian artist and deserves his own page. Peepeetimesthree (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Peepeetimesthree: the standard here is not to include people in lists unless they already have an article. Please read the guidelines on notability. If you can establish that the subject is notable by these standards, your best course of action is to create the article, or ask to have it created. If that happens, inclusion on the list will be trivial. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I presume this relates to Modern display of the Confederate flag

Hello! I have only reverted two edits. It seems any effort to present the page in an unbiased light is quickly stomped out by threats. I am open to a discussion, however, your recent actions do not appear to be receptive an unbiased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.219.32.108 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@47.219.32.108: You reverted to your preferred version here [1], here [2], and here [3], after having the same changes rejected a few days ago. I retract the assertion that you've actually violated the three-revert rule, but you're pushing up against it.

As to the content of your changes, regardless of my personal opinion, by far your best option is the one I pointed you to: discussing the matter on the article's Talk page. There, and only there, can you get consensus for your changes. I will say in advance that making the argument that, for example, www.theatlantic.com is not a reliable source will be difficult. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

UC Berkeley

Sorry about that. I added the explanation. We're discussing this very issue on the talk page and there is an editor being extremely uncooperative. I am trying to engage in a discussion to provide as much objective information as possible and he rudely dismisses anything that I state. If you're an administrator and you could help intervene as an unbiased third party, that would be much appreciated.

He claims that I should be reported for edit warring - but I really think he should be reported for both edit warring and harassment (as well as not agreeing to cooperate and publishing whatever materials without consensus) 50.250.227.83 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@50.250.227.83: I have no opinion whatsoever on the content. However, if the discussion is still ongoing, I think it is a much better idea to just leave the page alone until a consensus emerges. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I agree. I think that the sentence should not be put up in the first place until a consensus emerges. However, that edit that I deleted was AGAIN edited by that uncooperative editor because he felt that my points were "just on my own" and refused to cooperate. That's why I deleted it. He should be warned at the very least for refusing to work with the Wiki community and discussing this issue. 50.250.227.83 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence that mentions the "top-ten" IS the new edit. He edited it! So it's not the original text as you'd like to keep it as. Also, I'd like to advocate for a lock down or semi protection of the UC Berkeley page. I suspect the editor in the Talk page will continue to edit without Talk consensus on his own whim.50.250.227.83 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The page as it stands is roughly the version that was protected. If you want to request that the page be protected, the place to do it is WP:RPP. As I'm sure you understand, multiple editors accusing each other of edit-warring is not terribly helpful (though common). You might want to pursue dispute resolution.

For the record, I'm not an administrator, and I myself wouldn't fight either to keep this content or to exclude it. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that resource. I'll add a new section to the content dispute page right now50.250.227.83 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any resources for reporting editors for poor behavior other than writing on Talk pages of administrators? If you do, it would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.227.83 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@50.250.227.83: The nuclear option, of sorts, is the administrators' Incidents board, known as ANI. I personally have never used it, and you should be aware that your own conduct will be heavily scrutinized. ANI is in principle for discussing editors' conduct, not the article content. It's worth looking at the page, as the header has many useful links, and the discussions will show you how the process works.

For edit-warring, the administrators' edit-warring board is the place to go. Again, your own conduct will be under the microscope. Remember, something being wrong on Wikipedia is not the end of the world.

For content disputes, less dramatic options include requesting a third opinion, opening up a request for comments, or--ultimately-- a request for mediation.

My advice would be to start with dispute resolution and only move up the ladder if necessary. For what it's worth, my personal observation is that it's unwise to use these resources if you're feeling agitated. Also, I've never seen anyone successfully defend their behavior by defending the correctness of their content. It's like going into a bank and standing on a desk and screaming and demanding a thousand dollars: even if it's your bank and you have the money in your account, it's a poor tactic. Finally, keep your writing concise; walls of text just make people's eyes glaze over. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Abc382628 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Abc382628 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abc382628: Hello. Is there something I can help you with? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

there was never a macedonian language, there are no reliable proofs other than that it was greek as archaic stones depict

macedonian language

there was never a macedonian language, there are no reliable proofs other than that it was greek as archaic stones depictantoniodimitriadis (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Antoniodimitriadis: I have responded on your talk page, as that's where this discussion began. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Basnyat family

Please read this book K.L. Pradhan (2012) book: Thapa politics in Nepal Also, Baburam Acharya is the most reliable historian in Nepal.

• Acharya, Baburam (2012), Acharya, Shri Krishna (ed.), Janaral Bhimsen Thapa : Yinko Utthan Tatha Pattan (in Nepali), Kathmandu: Education Book House, p. 228, ISBN 9789937241748

Laxman Hamal and Gyanmani Nepal are good historians.

• Nepal, Gyanmani (2007), Nepal ko Mahabharat (in Nepali) (3rd ed.), Kathmandu: Sajha, p. 314, ISBN 9789993325857
• Hamal, Lakshman B. (1995), Military history of Nepal, Sharda Pustak Mandir

And lesser reliable Joshi, Bhuwan Lal; Rose, Leo E. (1966), Democratic Innovations in Nepal: A Case Study of Political Acculturation, University of California Press, p. 551 also points somewhat to the historical fact.

Shivaram Singh Basnyat family is the only noble family from Basnyat group and with 4 generations of nobles till 1846, rise of Rana dynasty. Khaptadi are mere Chhetri clans and can be adjusted in Basnet article since both share same family name.

@27.34.20.57: No. How about, instead, you read up on Wikipedia's policies? I'm perfectly willing to believe that "Shivaram Singh Basnyat family is the only noble family from Basnyat group"; it's just that nobody here cares. Your assertion that an "unreferenced non-noble family like Khaptadi" is somehow unworthy of having a family article is antithetical to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, which is to present a universal collection of verifiable, factual, unbiased information.

I repeat what I said before. If you want to improve the existing article, please use its talk page. If you want to add a new article, please read up on the procedure. Please do not attempt to hijack the existing article. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

National Fascist Party=

Please tell me why you think it is alright to just call the political positioning of the National Fascist Party as "Far-Right". As I have mentioned before, the National Fascist Party encompassed many political beliefs that were both left and right wing, hence the Syncretic positioning, as it is not sole to any individual side. Not all ideologies are just placed on one spot on a line. The entire concept of Syncretic Ideological beliefs is the point of the uniqueness of the National Fascist Party. Education with fact should be taught in an unbias and fair manner. The narrative that it was a "Far-Right" party is false. You can even read the Doctrine of Fascism, the guide for which the party's ideology was based upon. Yes, while it is largely taught as being a Far-Right party, in truth it is not. It is only taught that way because those who risk to question the labels set after World War 2 have faced ridicule and scorn. So what is the point of wikipedia if we continue to uphold this false information for the sake of not making others who are sensitive to the information unhappy and mad. It is controversial, yes, but it is truth. The correct political positioning of the National Fascist Party is Syncretic. In no way is it excluding the right wing beliefs, however just labeling it as "Far-Right" completely excludes the left-wing aspects to the party.

Replying on your talk page. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You're on Yankee. This is exactly the problem. Even in the page it lists the origins and founders of the National Fascist Party, many of whom happened to be radical left-wing visionaries. The Doctrine of Fascism is undeniably neither solely left or right. It is a blend, a mix, a unity, an amalgamation, of both ideals. A synonym to those words is Syncretic, a valid standing on the traditional political spectrum. If we fail to account for what the party's ideals were, than history itself is being taught with bias. And your attempt to compare the category Syncretic to a made-up category, as you call it"Lizard-alien takeover". This is not some made up category, it is a completely valid standing on the political spectrum.

May 2018

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to User talk:DatGoodDude342— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I was undoing an IP's harassment of User:DatGoodDude342 (as was that user him/herself, as it turns out). Please take a look at Special:Contributions/111.65.57.43. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I have to agree with NewEnglandYankee. An IP blanked someone else's user talk page in violation of WP:TALK. Why are you issuing NewEnglandYankee a warning? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I expect it's just a misunderstanding. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though! NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey hey, buddy. I really appreciate the assistance you gave resolving the issue I had with that IP User on my talk page. I'd give you a hug, but you can't really do that over a computer now, can you? Thanks a lot! DatGoodDude342 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@DatGoodDude342: You're very welcome. I've been the recipient of such friendly gestures more times than I can count, and it's always appreciated. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Shared IP

Hi! I'm using a computer at a public library and got a vandalism warning from you directed to some other user of the library. This is a shared IP from the library, so I expect it to continue making off-and-on vandalism edits. I'm not sure if you ban preemptively, but I would recommend it if possible. I can log in if I need to make an edit, and I'm sure anyone else making constructive edits from here could do so as well. Just wanted to give you a heads up. 50.205.174.210 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I've never seen a preemptive ban, though, so I guess I'll just keep the IP address on my radar. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar incoming

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For his excellent work in crushing and eviscerating the Vandals at the gates of Rome (for instance, his recent reversion of silly edits to the article Death of Cleopatra), I, PericlesofAthens, dub thee, NewEnglandYankee, Knight of Anti-Vandalism and Guardian of Wikipedia. Stand and be proud, good sir knight! Pericles of AthensTalk 23:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

BioMart

Hi NewEnglandYankee, I am just writing to tell you that there is no conflict in interest with me editing the BioMart page. My username is from my school ID and I am editing the page as a final project for my bioinformatics class. I'd appreciate it if you would let me keep my edits up till at least tomorrow morning since it is being graded tonight. After that, do whatever you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm208613 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bm208613: I'm afraid that's not the way Wikipedia works. Even if I were to leave the information up, someone else would almost certainly delete it. If you need to edit a page for a class, you'll have to do so in a way that doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. 00:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Orinoco crocodile

Okay I'm not some silly 6 year old twerp and I can make my own edits. I know that. You keep deleting my work on the Orinoco crocodile, little do you know, what I edit is actually true. They have been placed on Latin America's 72 most dangerous animals list. It's not 'unsourced' it's factual. Sloppiness (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sloppiness: That's great. If it's factual, all you need to do is find a reliable source, cite it, and we're all good. Doing as you've been doing contradicts Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability. I genuinely do encourage you to re-add the information--once you've sourced it. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2018 (KimUTC)

Okay.

Thank you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Explanation due

Perhaps you'd be willing to spend 2 minutes furnishing me with an explanation for why you deleted my response without aknowledgment? --178.78.65.15 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. 1. You're an obvious troll. 2. Your contribution was manifestly unhelpful, incompetently sourced, and part of a mass attack instigated by a Facebook group. 3. See 1. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

1. I'm not a troll, again please avoid making baseless accusations. You might not have cared for my contribution, that doesn't make me a troll.

2. I am not connected to any facebook attack. I'm sorry if my edits, which I repeat WERE SOURCED, were in any way reminiscent of an attack. Whether my edits were "unhelpful" is not really the point. I resent being called a troll, I resent being accused of attacking the page, I was attempting to add some information from a legitimate history programme to the page. Like I said, if this wasn't done eloquently enough for you, you have every right to edit, but I will not be insulted and bullied. 3. See 1. --178.78.65.15 (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. You're not a troll, and the flood of people adding vandalism from "Horrible Histories" (including to that specific article) was a coincidence. Consider the accusations retracted.

That said ...

An edit that begins "Known for his funky melody ..." is obviously not suitable for an encyclopedia.

"Horrible Histories" is unlikely to be considered a reliable source, and YouTube is also poor.

Two other editors also reverted your edits as unhelpful. Your repeated addition of them is a sign of edit warring. Instead, if you want to improve the article, please open a discussion on Talk:Pachacuti.

I'll remove the warning from your talk page. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Other Users' Talkpages

Hello. I have to let you know for future references that all users have the right to edit their own talkpage. I will have to ask that in the future you do not reinstate unwanted warnings on other users' talkpages. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: My interpretation of the policy is that removal of warnings is taken as a sign that the user has read and accepted the warnings. That's certainly how I've most often seen it applied, and in this case it was evident that the user had no intention of complying. However, I acknowledge the point. By a strict reading, you're correct. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of editors make that same mistake. CLCStudent (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In this particular case, I thought (and still think, to be candid) that it's a case of the user trying to game the system by "removing" evidence of warnings. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I do agree they were probably trying to game the system, but unfortunately, the policy says that they have the right to remove warnings. CLCStudent (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Not arguing, just assessing. Policies aren't set in stone! NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Stringcatt

I have opened an AN/I regarding this user here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stringcatt regards Mztourist (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert Comment

Sorry, I thought the removal was of established content. You were correct to revert my mistake. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: No problem; we all do this sometimes. Thanks for helping the project! NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Burr–Hamilton duel

This edit doesn't need a cite. It's noted and cited in the text of the article itself, and generally it's not necessary to repeat cites in the lede.

That being said, I agree with your removal; that's not really a lede-worthy factoid. TJRC (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@TJRC: Fair enough, and thanks for the comment. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Juno(company)

Could you, please, explain your deletion of information and saying the twitter is a poor source of information while there is refercence to official twitter of Juno and moreover to a newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.28.63 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not been paid by Juno. Please read up on reliable sources. Specifically, by Wikipedia policy, sources such as Twitter are considered unreliable; they "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as ... the material ... does not involve claims about third parties" (quotation edited for brevity; follow link for full version). NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, on the twitter link verified Juno account provides information about themselves so it does not fit this rule. And what about newspaper link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.28.63 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether the Twitter link is a verified Juno account is irrelevant. Twitter is, prima facie, not a reliable source. Any exceptions would have to be established by gaining consensus at the article's talk page. Livejournal is if anything worse. As to the newspaper link, it's not evident that it meets Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, which are taken very seriously when publishing derogatory information about a person or company. That's before I even get into the content and tone of the edit.

This has been noted on the talk pages of two (User talk:194.85.238.90, User talk:91.108.28.158) other IP addresses that have attempted to insert this information. Continuing to try to add it at this point verges on edit warring. I strongly suggest you discuss the matter on the article's talk page--not here. If you do, there is at least a chance that some form of this information might make it into the article. If you don't, the page may be locked down against further editing. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My fault!

So sorry, on mobile and accidentally hit save before finishing the edit summary explaining that redirect. Sorry for the trouble! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Gosh, and here I was going to apologize to you for having been too quick on the trigger. No worries on either side, then. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

dennis

My edit of his death is accurate, I cannot provide "sources" because they don't honestly exist, even in reports from law enforcement, that bumbled his entire situation... please don't undo my edits, I provided the current picture of dennis, and I think the suggestion that his death was suicide is entirely inaccurate, though I left enough for people to draw their own conclusions, those of us who knew him, and were in regular contact with him up to his death know that a lot more was going on... thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomicao (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gomicao: I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia. It's not social media. The website's core policies include verifiability, citations, and reliable sources. There's even a saying: "Our standard is verifiability, not truth." Your contributions will not be accepted without sources; if I don't undo them, someone else will.

I understand that you may feel frustrated by this. However, I'm telling you the observable facts of life here; this is how Wikipedia works. You may ask for confirmation at, for example, The Teahouse, but I flat-out guarantee you that you will be told the same thing there. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What are your sources that his death was heroin based, or suicidal? Bluelight forums yield no real sources of information other than regrets, and have nothing to do with the conversations had in a sensitive situation that shows facts not conjecture... if you are shooting for accuracy or respect for the individual these edits would not be undone!

@Gomicao: For the love of all that's good and holy, stop trying to convince me that you're right. I don't care if you're right. I care about the quality of articles, and you are adding content that has no sources and is utterly impossible to verify. To improve the article, don't complain to me; DISCUSS THE MATTER ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Where are your sources for the current information if i may ask? Link me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomicao (talk • contribs) 03:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gomicao: Look at the article itself, please. Do you see where it says "news of which was posted[6]"? If you click on that [6], it takes you to the citation. If you click on the citation, it takes you to the source. That's what's meant by verifiability.

You may wish to argue that this source is unreliable, or that the article misinterprets what it says. If you do, then

USE

THE

ARTICLE'S

TALK

PAGE,

PLEASE.

That's what it's there for.

Your speculations on his mental state and his plans, by contrast, are just that: your speculations. Please respect the goal of the Wikipedia project, which is to build an encyclopedia. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War

no fact for 2million casuatlies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.200.2 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your unsupported assertion, as well as your attempt to "correct" the figures by simply subtracting two million. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for dealing with recent IP vandalism and trolling. I appreciate your effort. Keep it up! Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thank you very much. Please consider the sentiment most heartily reciprocated. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Constantinople

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish on Constantinople, though. The tags you're repeatedly removing are legitimate requests for citations. Since your edits have now been reverted three times, by two different editors, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page before doing anything else. Thank you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Check Talk Sleath56 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Lingam

Hi @NewEnglandYankee:. This is regarding Lingam as a phallus symbol. In the talks of the page and it has been nominated for the deletion. Moreover writing <While the symbol is a phallic symbol in origin, it is usually no longer considered to be such by most devouts> gives the idea that Lingam is a phallus symbol. Wording needs to be improved शिव साहिल (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Thanks for the comment. I see that you've contributed to the talk page, so thanks for that as well. I have no comment on the wording myself, so I'll be OK with whatever happens--presuming that it's agreed-upon, sourced, etc. Happy editing! NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

MrAldenStan

Hey I reported him too ARMcgrath (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@ARMcgrath: And I thank you for doing so. If there's a bounty, you can have it. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

He was all yours happy Wiki ATM (talk)03:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry!

Didn't mean to revert the maintenance bot on Talk:List of fictional turtles.

I was trying to figure out how to fix it when you fixed it for me. Thanks!

No problem. I guessed it would be something like that. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

ONIX AUDIO

I was under the understanding that Wikipedia is an open source information collaboration . Perhaps you can clarify why my addition is being removed ?

First my opinion is a valid as anyone else s , the world is more than just the USA . If what I have written is not right .. then why not re write it, as you see fit , so it is as you feel right ( open source contribution ) , but removal of a whole section of important history is both biased and without the freedom that Wikipedia promotes . It is a valid section add to it , why do you remove it ?

SEE BELOW previous post ...to user Apparition11 ....it is not a editing war it is a valid contribution.

James you clearly do not have sufficient knowledge of the relevance to this company or IP rights and its history to it ... I suggest you search other IP rights postings in other articles before you attack this one .

The world has changed , and IP rights from virtually every company are compromised and mentioning the reality of this is both relevant and valid .. and is not promotional .. In fact I was sold false product and fake product from others using this companies name .. so please tell me how that is promotional and not factual, it is an important point of reference find third party reference regarding this https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o49714.pdf.

I do not consider that Trade Marks and IP rights are anything other than a factual part of this companies history .. Once again why remove the whole section if its not right .. re-write it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.109.129.37 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page to discuss ways to improve the article, of which there are many. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you did there

False memory page edit from May. Cute Sgerbic (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Most kind. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Tucson Mosque

I have fixed it and used a neutral tone. Thanks for the info!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSA1234 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@MSA1234: You're welcome, and thanks again for contributing. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Zhang Chenchen's quote

Why do you keep removing his quote from the page "Baizuo"? As someone who has lived in Hong Kong and lived a couple years in the mainland I can tell you that this is an accurate way of showing the meaning of that word to people who have not seen it before, and then you warn me about "edit wars" haha, despite me already talking about it on the "talk" page. It is funny because the people the word is describing are the ones trying to remove it, but it is also concerning as the farleft are the ones always trying to remove criticism of them. That is sad as one of the reasons I left China to go to the US is for ideas of freedom, but that is also being attacked here with political correctness just like in China.

To see who really rules over you, just see who you aren't allowed to criticize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jezza2K01: You seem not to have understood the messages I left for you. Forgive me if my response here seems blunt; I am trying to be clear, not insulting.

You're trying to convince me to support the content of what you're trying to add. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE CONTENT. I do not care if you are right or wrong or in-between. I had never heard of the term Baizuo before this morning. I had never heard of the name "Zhang Chenchen" before this morning. I will be content if I never hear of either of them again.

What is at issue is your conduct. The way you are behaving is bad for the project. It has nothing to do with what you're saying. It has everything to do with how you're saying it.

When people disagree with you, engaging in a tit-for-tat edit war helps nobody. Instead, use the article's talk page and try to achieve consensus. If that fails, there are other ways of resolving disputes that don't make life harder for your fellow editors.

Right now, at this very moment, any administrator who sees this situation is quite likely to (a) block your account, and (b) lock down the page against changes, erasing your contributions. They will do that, in many cases, without even reading a word that you wrote. If you don't want that to happen, please do as I have suggested, for your own sake.

Finally, your note to me implies that I have a political agenda. That is incorrect. To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your help earlier and for being so patient with this newby editor!! comedy.bookings (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Revisions in the Article on the Greek Debt Crisis

On the contrary, there is plenty of supporting citations, including IMF's own study, for something that is self-evident (what effect a 25% drop in GDP would have on the Debt to GDP ratio). I had corrected the article before I saw your comment, but there should be no issue. If you want, we can agree on a different title, but certainly not "aftermath" Skartsis (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Skartsis: I don't care about the specific word "Aftermath". However:

• The use of scare quotes in a section header is not acceptable, nor is any attempt to use the section header to draw a conclusion.
• The statement "The 25% drop in Greece's GDP connected with the bailout programmes, had a catastrophic effect on the debt crisis itself" absolutely requires a citation.

I will open a section on the article's talk page. Please continue the discussion there. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

RE: National Organization for Marriage

I am insulted that you accused me of Bad Faith just because you disagree with my attemtps to add some neutrality to an article. I will now explain my actions.

• I changed it to "resignation of bus driver" because of misleading click bait. The chapter clearly states that the man involved had a Facebook page and was their bus driver. That's not me making something up. That is straight up in the article. The header before that made it look like he was a ranking member, committeeman, or major player outside of social media. It isn't, and that is misleading.

• I added "allegations of" because the previous version stated the allegations as fact, breaching neutrality rules. NOM had an equally valid reply.

• I added multiple links to unfamiliar subjects and people, as well. You have committed vandalism by removing multiple links.

I expect an immediate apology and a retraction of your act of bad faith. I knew what I was doing, and I know that Wikipedia is riddled with bias in certain categories. If you have ever believed in Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, you will revert your changes and leave mine in place.

You owe me an apology.

-2602:306:39D6:CBA0:A585:FD4A:6AD2:25D0 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: The "butt" thing was an accident. I have a script called "Butt to Butt" that alters text automatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:39D6:CBA0:A585:FD4A:6AD2:25D0 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And changing "storm-cloud background" to "storm-butt background"? [4] Was that an attempt to improve the article? Struck per explanation above

I didn't (and do not) accuse you of bad faith. I said that I didn't think your changes were constructive and that you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This happens all the time on Wikipedia; it's called the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I have no opinion pro or con on the substance of your changes, except as noted above.

Considering that you're the one tossing around the word "vandalism"--a term which, you will note, I didn't use--I decline to apologize. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

You should always check your sources before responding to any edits made. Thank you.

You Care

For someone that says that they don't care, you surely can't leave it alone. So, please do as you say and "don't care".

@Mthompson108: I don't care about the first name. Change it if you must. If you add the other statement without finding a strong, reliable source for it, I will remove it and give you another warning. Any other experienced editor would do the same. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Facebook is the source, but evidently it can't be added.

In the first place, Facebook is practically the textbook definition of a non-reliable source. Anyone can say anything on Facebook, without fear of fact-checking. In the second place, your sentence used Facebook to support (inadequately) the notion that "Wish has become well known among Facebook users", without providing any support whatsoever for the semi-defamatory part. If you did this on a biography of someone living, you'd already be blocked. Please read the links I've given you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your helpful reverts! XYZt (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Report on Rashida Tlaib

I have closed the report at WP:ANEW and blocked the IP for 24 hours. However, you did not help matters by edit-warring yourself, although you had tried to communicate with the IP as much as possible and consensus was on your side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you; you're entirely right, and I will be more restrained in the future. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NewEnglandYankee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)