User talk:Widjididji

Welcome!

Hello, Widjididji, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wheat edit

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wheat, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not edit war, WP:WAR Zefr (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect I can see that LiveStrong.com might not be considered a reliable source, so mea culpa on that one - but can you help me understand why my other source (ww.wholegraingoodness.com) was not considered reliable? It is an independent, not-for-profit website, it's not a recipe site, it has a NPOV, and it's not mentioned on the WP page for perennial sources. You also mentioned that I should not edit war, but I don't see any evidence that there was a WP:WAR going on about the subject of bulgur vs cracked wheat, so I'm not sure why you thought I was doing that. (Could that be because I kept accidentally clicking Publish Changes instead of Show Preview, and that resulted in my publishing then correcting mistakes several times instead of correcting them all first and just publishing once?) Thank you for your input. Widjididji (talk) 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your polite comments. We shouldn't use livestrong because it's a non-expert site and doesn't meet WP:RS. Similarly, the wholegraingoodness website is clearly promotional and not subjected to peer review or editorial scrutiny as would a published paper in a respected journal. For topics on food, nutrition, human health, and medicine, please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources (see guideline WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles, position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (e.g., CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. The comment about edit warring came from your reversion of my revert, using the same content and unacceptable sources. This is usually a sign that an editor is digging in, and insisting on the original edit. Following you here on your page, if you wish to discuss further. Good luck with your editing. --Zefr (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow - I wasn't participating in a WP:WAR, you just saw my edit and reverted it before I had finished, and I didn't even notice that it had been changed. I'm new at this, so just learning, and therefore a bit slow. I see now that the wholegraingoodness website is a promotional site for the grain industry, so I understand why it should not be used as a reference. Thank you for your assistance. Widjididji (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Modern

I undid your edit to Tate Modern because of the tone, which was not neutral, using words like "venerable" and "whopping". The fact that it is the second most visited attraction in the UK is already covered in the infobox. That said, you could put it back in the article if you word it with an appropriate encyclopaedic tone (and leave out the bit about the population of Finland). --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I put it back with the edits you suggested. I do see the ranking in the infobox, but feel that it works spelling it out in the initial paragraph. Besides, this link also backs up the comment immediately before mine about there being no admission charge for the collection displays, which is not otherwise referenced. And this is a nice new online article about the museum that I think people might be interested in reading, so that's why I wanted to link to it in the first place. Widjididji (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from sources

I saw your question at WP:AfD. I'm not really an expert, but when using copyrighted material you are required to paraphrase it. The many details are at Wikipedia:Copyrights, and material considered to be copyright-free is described at Wikipedia:Public domain. Small portions can be inserted verbatim using "blockquote". Material published by the US Government is not copyrighted for WP purposes, as is anything published in the US prior to 1924. Other countries have different rules. WP generally considers websites to be copyrighted, unless specifically disclaimed on the site. "Fair use" material is generally not allowed verbatim on WP. RobDuch (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the references, RobDuch. Much appreciated. Widjididji (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse at WP:TEA is the designated place for new users to ask questions, in case you haven't found it. RobDuch (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingvar Kamprad edit

Hello. I believe you have me mistaken for a different user. The only edits I made were extremely minor ones to punctuation.

Here is the difference you appear to be referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingvar_Kamprad&type=revision&diff=928734045&oldid=927632019

As you can see, that was made by an IP user. They also deleted several links in the IKEA article. I've gone ahead and reverted both of these changes. WP Ludicer (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess I need to study up on how to read these edit pages, because they're still confusing to me. Widjididji (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your addition to Manta ray has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Even a single sentence should not be copy/pasted 'as is' - see this diff. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you. Widjididji (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children in infoboxes

Hi, I noticed you making some changes to the children parameter in infoboxes. Please see the documentation at Template:Infobox person. The guidance for the children parameter is Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable. I invite you to revert your edits to Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson that don't follow the guideline, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've reverted them. Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Schazjmd. I had (obviously) not read that particular documentation, and did not think about potential privacy issues.Widjididji (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Removal of external links on page Geoglyph

I removed the external link to the Sculpture magazine article by Ken Scarlett titled "Andrew Rogers and the Rhythm of Life" (url=https://sculpture.org/404.aspx?404;http://www.sculpture.org:80/documents/scmag04/april04/rogers/rogers.shtml) on the Geoglyph page because that page no longer exists.

I removed the external link to Photogrammetric Reconstruction of the Geoglyphs of Nasca and Palpa (url=http://www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch/research/peru/index.html) on the Geoglyph page because that page no longer exists.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:06, 12 April 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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, I'm Painting17. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Rescue of Jessica McClure. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Painting17 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Painting17. You are correct that my comment should have been in the External Links section rather than the See Also section. I am curious, however, as to why you deleted my comment rather than just move it to the correct location.Widjididji (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Amazon book sales link as references

Hello, and thank you for your contributions. I wanted to reach out and let you know why I removed the "reference" you added along with content to Art theft (BTW, I did not remove the content itself). The "reference" was to an Amazon book sales link, which is not a reliable source and could be considered a spam link. Amazon book sales links, or other book-sales links are not proper references, their purpose is to sell books. A better ref would be a review of the book in something like Publishers Weekly or Kirkus reviews or a journal article. As a newer editor you most likely did not know that. The whole Literature section needs proper referencing, hopefully in time that will happen in time.

If you can find a reference in a Reliable Source (see WP:RS, and WP:RSP for more info on sources and the quality thereof), please feel free to add it! When I'm searching for a source for a book, I will sometimes google the title (in quotes) and the words "book review" (in quotes) to find reviews in reliable sources that are not user-submitted reviews or book sales sites, but those in publications that have editorial oversight. Thanks again for your contributions, and it's good meeting you here. Happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, thank you! I am learning! :-) Widjididji (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out to the TEAHOUSE (and you may want to bookmark the page, since they archive questions quickly), or for more technical matters, you can contact the HELPDESK. There is a lot to learn and many helpful editors here. Happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 17:48, 27 August 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]