Transcendental

Lana Del Rey

Hello, I'm MyJunoBaldwin, and I was the person that made the original edit about the face mask controversy on the Lana Del Rey page. Thank you for fixing that issue of the person taking down the story. I'm new to this, so I wanted to give my appreciation. Hope this wasn't a major issue for you going back and forth with the user. Again, thank you, and have a wonderful day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyJunoBaldwin (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And my thanks go out to you for contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Cheers, Transcendental36 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting several unconstructive edits on ballet related articles and warning the perpetrator. I just reported the user for sockpuppetry. There was another new user with very similar editing pattern yesterday. Corachow (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Corachow: You're very welcome. I already reported the user in question to the admins for vandalism. I'll update my report with a link to yours to help speed things along. Best of luck, Transcendental (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your note

Thank you for your note on edit warring. I have tried explaining the situation to the other party in a clear and concise manner, but unfortunately they appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend what they're doing wrong, so I've had to take the unfortunate step of reporting them for just that. Hopefully the stewards and/or vandalism squad can help in this matter because I'm not quite sure how to get through to someone who won't see reason. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4502:C380:349D:356A:D89C:A4FF (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @2601:5C1:4502:C380:349D:356A:D89C:A4FF:, I would advise against reporting the other contributor as you are not entirely innocent in this matter. Neither you or the other contributor have attempted to bring the the dispute to the article's talk page and you have well exceeded the Three Revert Rule. I think it's best to not worry about winning the argument and instead focus on resolving the dispute on the article's talk page so that the correct content may be displayed on the article in question. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, Transcendental (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In this case, I concur that it is probably best to let baby have their bottle. It's certainly not worth any extended conflict. I guess they just feel that the article can only be updated on their schedule, and no one else's. I'll still check in on it though, since ironically, for the past couple of weeks, I've had to fill in the missing data that they've failed to update. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4502:C380:349D:356A:D89C:A4FF (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that conflict is not the answer here. However, let's keep the personal attacks at a minimum here and assume good faith. Contributors like myself or Tobi999tomas are not on a schedule and are simply here to improve Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to join the Wikipedia community by creating an account if you feel that you are willing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. You can find more information here. Please take a look at them when you have the time so you may avoid any complications such as this one in the future, and we welcome your contributions. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or ask away at the Tea House, we are here to help. Best, Transcendental (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your reverts

You have reverted completely appropriate EL additions, stating "Repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user." But these are appropriate ELs. Please self-revert. IPs are allowed to add appropriate ELs. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID (#10) and please stop linking social media sites on the EL section. Thanks! Transcendental (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate as an external link when the subject of the article has no regular website. It is only not appropriate where the subject has his own website. Not the case here. Do a search - there are hundreds (thousands?) of such ELs on wikipedia. There is even a template created for them, if one wishes to use it. For ELs. Template:Instagram. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A case of "other stuff exists" isn't viable here. They also have their own pages on ESPN, CBS Sports, etc. so clearly they have webpages dedicated to them. What does the article have to gain by having the person's social media on it? Transcendental (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition, WP:ELBLP explains it very well why Instagram does not belong in a WP:BLP. It's simply not a reliable source. Best, Transcendental (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And another, see WP:INSTAGRAM. Only reason to add Instagram is "when the subject of the article has no other Web presence", which is clearly not the case here. Hope this clears things up, Transcendental (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

While the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, and while these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

As to your meta question of "what does an article have to gain," the answer is that the article has the same thing to gain as when - when a subject has their own personal web page - we provide a link to that. The reader who is interested in learning more or seeing more about the subject can do so. That is why we provide ELs to their personal web pages, when those exist.

There is a difference that wp stresses between using an Instagram page as a reliable source - not the case here, and as an EL - the case here.

The "web presence" that is being referred to is a personal web page. If a subject has one, it will link naturally to their instagram and twitter pages, which is why we do not then add those as ELs. Again - not the case here. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"There is a difference that wp stresses between using an Instagram page as a reliable source - not the case here, and as an EL - the case here." -- WP:ELBLP is specifically referring to ELs which is the case here. WP:INSTAGRAM also has a section referring to external links that also backs my claim. What part in these WP guidelines state otherwise?

"The "web presence" that is being referred to is a personal web page" -- Where does it say this? A web presence is self explanatory: having a presence on the web. Do the existing ELs on these BLPs not satisfy this? Transcendental (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)