User talk:War wizard90/Archives/2015/April

Hello

I recently saw that you added me to this list. I'm not a sockpuppet and I would appreciate if you could stop accusing me for being one of them. The username sounds similar but this is a coincidence. Is there another reason why you accused me of being a sockpuppet or is it because a user suspected that I may be one?--Shwayze  ^sing♪ 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shwayze:It had nothing to do with your username, and everything to do with your editing habits. It's all in the SPI, feel free to read and respond there, my talk page is not the place to discuss your possible socking. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William Street (Manhattan)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William Street (Manhattan). Legobot (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_water_chlorination

I came across the original article and things were written somewhat confusing and in part wrong. I'm a chemist working in biotech. I like Wikipedia and felt like contributing might be something good. So I did some research and re-wrote the article. Realizing that this is actually a somewhat controversially discussed topic, I tried to keep it simple, yet not wrong. Admittedly, I didn't add any references, and my opinion was solely based on information accessible online and which made sense to me. There's a lot of information out there, that is chemically wrong or even complete nonsense. That's fine, since not everyone is a chemist and even within chemists there're big differences. Either way, I have no idea how changing of articles work and whether there's something like a quality control. I was actually rather surprised that I could simply do changes. Are there simple instructions for editing articles, how to make changes and where to put explanations? 166.170.51.35 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@166.170.51.35:@Miccct: Yes there is, and don't worry all your work is not gone, it is preserved in the page history so if you find references we can restore it! I will leave you a welcome message on your talk page that will give you info on getting started on Wikipedia. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tyson Fury

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

no good edit

hi, I deleted it because the band doesn´t approve/like the remix, there are many other popular remixes of the song, old and new, why would this one be featured on the page and the others don´t?

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gael515 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gael515: In the future please provide an edit summary stating as much, this will help others evaluate why you removed the content and will be less likely to get reverted. Myself and many other editors will automatically revert edits that removed content with no explanation, regardless of what content was removed. Finally, how do I or any other editors know that the band doesn't approve/like this remix? You need to provide some sort of reference as evidence to prove that statement. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sia Furler

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sia Furler. Legobot (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Milacron.

Thank you for your speedy response to my question.

I have a couple more questions:

What would you consider a credible source out side our website? Business/Industry publications?

Milacron is not publicly traded and that can be verified from NYSE or NASDAQ listings. Can you remove that?

Again, my sincerest apologies, I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, I've just never thought of how all of the information is edited or curated.

Michael.

Michaeljamescrawford (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Michaeljamescrawford: I noticed that the link to the NYSE website was broken, I believe Milacron was formerly traded publicly, and I have seen recent news saying they may go public again soon. However, I will either remove the content for now, or if I can find a source I will change the statement to note that it was "formerly" traded, but is no longer. Regarding your question on what is considered a reliable source, please Click Here for Wikipedia's policy regarding this. Finding reliable sources for the injection molding industry can prove difficult at times, I find the most success in magazines or e-zines such as Plastic's Today. I will also leave a welcome message on your user talk page that is full of useful links for new users learning Wikipedia's policies. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated the new logo and have corrected all of the out-of-date information to the best of my knowledge. I was able to find a source regarding the re-branding under the Milacron umbrella, let me know if you see any other mistakes and I will address them. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, War wizard90! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Humankind is the word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cosmos:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey#Wording. Additionally, scientists is not equal to physicists. Since you cnverted my "most physicists use humankind" to "all scientists use humankind." Also, best is to say- Neil deGrasse Tyson and his episodes don't. It has no point to use that objectinable word to denote the history of space and time as explained in the series. The matter can be best solved henceforth, without more hard work I suppose! The word is used when the article is about a proverb or a piece of art where original words have to be kept. Have a good day Mousanonyy (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mousanonyy:The issue isn't really what physicists use it or not anyways (and SOOO sorry I said scientists rather than physicists, I'm sure EVERY physicists doesn't insist on using that word either), what is annoying is that feminists have decided to re-define the word mankind to mean something derogatory, when it is not intended in any such way, I'm against the re-defining of words to support any particular groups argument. They like to do the same thing with the word rape, they try to re-define what rape is in order to victimize women in situations where they were not in fact victims. Giving any group this kind of control over our language is dangerous. That being said, I honestly don't care enough to edit war with you about it. Should we start replacing every instance of manhole cover with personhole cover??? Either way, keep it as is because it's obviously very important to you and only a minor annoyance to me. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Things change. It is not too surprising that makind appears to falsely stand for the entire human race.I am not a man and why should I fall under mankind? English has evolved like we have :) Don't be annoyed. As I said, the word mankind is preserved forever in few proverbs etc and that is okay. The origin of words manhole and manual does not refer to the word man (male) whereas the word mankind dates back to the latin meaning male. So I hope you understand why Sir Tyson does not use the word :) Have a great day! Mousanonyy (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mousanonyy:First of all, I would like to say that the issue with the wording in the article is non-consequential at this point. Technically, per their dictionary definitions either word is correct. However, I feel it's important for you to understand why I feel the re-defining of words is dangerous. I have no problem with words evolving naturally with the English language, what I do have a problem with is the forced evolution of a word to support a particular groups needs. Why is it important that we don't allow the word "rape" to be re-defined for example? Well rape is a word that is written into many of our laws, and if you can redefine the word rape you can redefine the meaning of our laws. What rape used to mean was sexual intercourse without consent. What feminists have tried to do is turn the meaning into something as follows: If a women gets drunk and decides to have sex, but then wakes up the next morning and regrets her drunken decision, she was raped. Now I understand not ALL feminists hold such opinions, but an alarming number of extremists are pushing for these type of extreme changes, that have nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with false victimization and gross empowerment. As a man, it can be literally terrifying to think about how easily we can be accused and charged with something as serious as rape without ever having actually done anything wrong. In ANY court situation if it's just her word against his, the man will always lose, which puts us in a scary position. I think many woman never take the time to stop and think about it that way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to advocate for rape, and I'm not against equal rights. I AM against using feminist movements to gain an advantage over the opposite sex just because they feel they've been at a disadvantage for so long (which in many areas is completely true). While it's unfortunate that women haven't always had equal rights, it doesn't mean we should give them undue power to make up for it. I hope that makes some sense to you and you can somewhat grasp where I am coming from, and why I get concerned with these types of wholesale changes. I don't want you thinking I'm doing it just to be an asshole, as that truly wasn't my reason. Also, I apologize if I came across rude or abrupt, as I may have reacted quickly without thinking through and wording everything in the most amiable manner. It just hit a nerve with me and that's what I wanted to explain to you. Thanks for keeping your cool with me and hope you also have a good day. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are presuming I am a feminist. I am a rationalist. I think just the right should happen, and I try to improve myself too

in that respect. Definitely no group should take advantage of another. But, it is easily understandable why creators of the universe are men in religions, why the word mankind was made to denote women and men in literature- because women at that time did not have access to authority or literature. Now is not the case, and right things can happen. So, if an alien landed on earth, she or he would not be able to understand how mankind is another word for womankind! Hence, from a neutral point of view, the idea was absurd. Correct is- womanind plus mankind = humankind. The alien is happy! :) And I repeat- very importantly, using word humankind is not giving undue advantage! How can it be? Yes, using the word womankind for the human race would be giving advantage to female clan- that's unfair. Mousanonyy (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colonial Nigeria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colonial Nigeria. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there

Why is the Jason Leopold page so outdated, biased and not updated? Why do people keep it negative? Why aren't there any articles about all of his Freedom of Information work? Seems odd and inherently biased on the part of Wikipedia to keep it squarely focused on events that happened nearly a decade ago and more instead of providing regularly updated material. Why does the Wikipedia community do this? For example: https://medium.com/matter/the-secret-to-getting-top-secret-secrets-1f693eaf609a https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jason%20leopold%20foia

This is not fair to Jason Leopold or his readers and followers.

-Shoshana Burstyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.12.136.213 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@104.12.136.213: Shoshana, the issue is not with adding updated information, it's the manner in which you are doing it. You cannot just drop external links right into Wikipedia articles like that, you need to follow Wikipedia's Manual of style and policy guidelines. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page with some useful links to help you contribute constructively to the project. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genocides in history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genocides in history. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not being clear

Hello thanks for removing my edit without any information on what I have done wrong that requires it to be removed. I ensure that YOU will go ahead now and add the information I put in there according to the guidelines which were follow originally. if not and you removed it just so you could be alpha congrats. JaegerNZ (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). Legobot (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nickolaspkp

I am working on an article about The Basilica of Anneliese Michel and I need time to improve the page, but it continually gets nominated for deletion. Please help. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolaspkp (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nickolaspkp: If it keeps getting nominated for deletion, it's probably because it doesn't belong here, or you have failed to prove that it belongs. You should probably go through the normal Articles for Creation process and get the article approved BEFORE moving it into the mainspace where it can be speedily deleted if not up to Wikipedia's standards. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@War wizard90: I genuinely thank you so much for the assistance. By the way I agree with you about your views on God. I'm agnostic as well. You made my day with the help! All the best! -Nickolaspkp (talk) 29 April 2015 (UTC)