User talk:AntiDionysius/Archives/2023/October

Extrawurst

The page is better with that material removed. It's more appropriate to describe the thing (a sausage) and mention the minor point about language in a subheading, than to split it into two halves. Please check again and restore my fix. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:4153:17CC:F487:515E (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As a general point: when your "Twinkle" and "Huggle" tools indicate a section removal, always check that it is vandalism, and don't blindly revert. The tools can't do quality checking for you. I see this kind of issue a lot. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:4153:17CC:F487:515E (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't blindly revert, I consciously reverted. I looked at the edit, saw an unexplained deletion, and reverted it. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 NPP Backlog Drive sign up

Hello! I noticed that you are signed up for the October 2023 NPP Backlog Drive. However, you're going to be unable to participate if you do not have the New Page Reviewer permission. If you are still interested in participating in the backlog drive, then I encourage you to request the permission at WP:PERM/NPR. I have, for the moment, removed you from the participants list as you not able to participate at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

I've just realised you got there before me, but I left the warning. Sorry! Knitsey (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Clashes happen AntiDionysius (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop

Stop deleting my edits, there is nothing bad about it or was there a mistake?LOLdudz (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As explained on your talk page, all additions should be supported by a reliable source, and Wikipedia pages are not an appropriate place to add comments memorialising musical artists. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I added something that is not a rememberance I added something about the theories and explained that they were fake but you deleted it. LOLdudz (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

since I meant to put it at the bottom, my bad LOLdudz (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

And as I explained on your talk page, the problem with that was that it was your own analysis, and did not reference a source. Discussion of conspiracy theories regarding a famous figure's death could be a valuable inclusion, but it would have to be with reference to a reliable, secondary source covering the issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I got it, I'll add a reliable source to back it up, but how do I do this? Do I use Wikipedia to reference or another website? LOLdudz (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Since idk how to code on this LOLdudz (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has inbuilt referencing; there's a handy guide to using it here. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

176.134.231.26

Hi. Editors (including IPs) are free to remove anything they like from their own talk page. There are a handful of exceptions but even in those cases reverting them on their own talk page causes mire problems than it solves. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; in the process of blanking their own talk page, though, they used an edit summary that was quite inflammatory towards other editors, so I appended a note about that. AntiDionysius (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Summary

I received your message but no, the edit summary is constructive, but with visible human expression. The Arab Canadian (named something like "The Greatest Mole of E...") reverted my edit because he thinks The Times of Israel is not credible. In fact, IT'S CREDIBLE AND ALREADY BEEN USED ON THE PAGE. Also, he said that The Times of Israel didn't mention "Palestinian" while in fact IT DOES. This clearly he is antisemitic and refuse to use any Israeli's sources.-GogoLion (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning someone's ethnicity in an edit summary, as if it's relevant, is clearly not constructive, and declaring based on their comment about a single source that they're "antisemitic" is clearly a WP:AGF violation. This is a difficult and emotionally-charged topic; please don't make it more so. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Paul bernstein

Please stop putting false information on the paul p Bernstein page. I know the man and know that your information Is false. Adb11 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have reason to do so (are being paid to) please let me know Adb11 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Please, first of all, consider reading the Wikipedia guideline on assuming good faith. Secondly, if you personally know the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest, and really shouldn't be editing the page. Finally, the main issue with your edit was that you did not provide a source for your information; if you are concerned about accuracy, please point us to a good source. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Knowing the subject (not well I might add) shouldn’t preclude me from commenting on who are or who are not his children. Those are simple facts, not opinions which was why I was happy to correct them. Furthermore, there is no source for the information I am correcting as it stands. Under your guidelines, you should remove that entire section. I was just correcting falsehoods. What makes you the arbiter of truth for this page? Why are you so interested in this? Adb11 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not preclude you from commenting on anything; but you'll notice I didn't say you shouldn't comment. I said you shouldn't edit the article, as explained in the the Conflict of Interest policy.

If you look at the article now, you'll notice it's already been updated; a bunch of edits have been made, among them removing any mention of his son's name. People who aren't notable in their own right shouldn't really be named in articles anyway.

I am not, and have never claimed to be, the arbiter of anything. I saw someone making an unsourced change to a page and acted on it, as I do dozens of times per day. I have no interest in this subject. I had never heard of Paul Bernstein before today. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gal Hirsch

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gal Hirsch, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism debate

Hi, given the mess on various pages in light of the Israel-Gaza conflict, would you support opening a RfC or something similar in the relevant noticeboard? I'm not sure whether it belongs more in the MoS talk page or village pump. All the best Yr Enw (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm in two minds; the deeply unpleasant experience of the discussion so far does not make me excited to widen it. I am also aware that much of the participation and much of the intractability has been from non-EC users. That partially makes me feel no need to seek outside counsel, because among people actually allowed to edit the articles in question, there doesn't seem to be much desire to change anything, so why rock the boat. It partially makes me think that a RfC etc could be good, because the more active/long term Wikipedia community will probably have a more productive discussion on the issue, and then it'll be resolved. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I actually came back here to scale back on my suggestion because, like you say, it works okay at the moment and I don't particularly have a problem with how it stands. So, if the other users have a problem with it, maybe let them bring it up. The inferences about our intentions (and constant notifications) are just annoying though, but I guess that's WP:DR. Yr Enw (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That said, the 9/11 issue does bother me, so perhaps opening the RfC on that old debate will be something for the near future. Yr Enw (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something to return to, yes. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Mmm. I think at a certain point continuing to engage with a given user is probably doing more harm than good; there's only so many times one can go over the same two or three points. It's not getting us anywhere closer to consensus or any other good outcome. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I am now inclined to think it might be a good idea to open some kind of RfC or something similar. The edits made by ‎Arminden with abusive edit summaries still stand, I am not inclined to revert them without sanction, since I would be violating the 1RR. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is where any RfC belongs? Personally I think it needs to be wider than any single talk page (unless on the manual of style talk page), coz the others editors kind of do have a point: If, say, the view that all mentions of terrorism should be caveated won out, it has wider implications on thousands of articles. Is there a policy discussion noticeboard? Yr Enw (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is, as expected, likely going to extend much further than one single article. In case it is of interest to you, having done some digging today, it seems this debate has been going on for 20+ years without any clear resolution. Am not sure where the present WP:TERRORIST comes from?? See here [1] and here[2]. It's also very unclear how that September 11 discussion on the same thing ended up. Yr Enw (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST policy debate

Hi, I ended up opening a wider policy discussion about MOS:TERRORIST. If you're interested, your input would be very welcome here: [3] Yr Enw (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

How to cite a source

Please tell me how to cite a source IdkMyNameBruhhhhhh (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

1997 constitution of Thailand

Chapter 5 (Sections 71-89): The fundamental responsibilities of the state. 124.121.4.173 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what it says. But as I explained here, it is not clear how this is relevant to the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/download/article/article_20151016145402.pdf

The policies in that page was from either eighth plan or 1997 constitution .Both were designed for poor people. 124.121.4.173 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that the constitution was important to the formation of the policies? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t have citations . In Thailand,the copyright law was a joke. If you read economy of Thailand it gave credit to one government .And Thailand it gave the credit to the other.

I am trying to prevent the next Thai massacre by telling the truth .It was actually the Thai People who draw up the eighth plan to support the education reform 1995 . And the reform brought Education for All poor people that help them.

There are no need to kill each other over political issues. 124.121.4.173 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. If you don't have a source that the constitution is relevant to the article, then the constitution shouldn't be in the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

List of massacres in Thailand Will you help me prevent it? 124.121.4.173 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you're saying. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)