Revirvlkodlaku

Heidevolk

Your changes broke the timeline, I fixed it, please leave the date format as is. 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:A151:A69D:59C1:FF8 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Forget" by Twin Shadow

It appeared that I made some errors adding sourced genres to the "Forget" article. I am curious as to what errors have been made. Misterspaceman (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Misterspaceman, a great way to begin a conversation with someone is by offering even a simple greeting like "Hi" or "Hello". Your message strikes me as mildly passive-aggressive, which is unfortunate; please let me know if I'm mistaken. I don't quite understand what you're asking of me: what errors are you referring to, and what kind of explanation are you hoping for that isn't obvious from my edit? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to begin with a greeting, so hello :)! I did not intend to be passive aggressive, and I apologize if my comment caused a negative feeling. In fact, I was rather content and not angry, and right now I am also content. The errors I were referring to were some recycled sources used for "new wave" on the article, namely the Chicago Reader and Billboard sources. "Forget" has been called "new wave" across the Internet due to its strong nostalgia for 1980s pop, which was why the genre initially had 4 citations on the album's article. I didn't know that repeat sources were not encyclopedic, so I'd like to give my kind gratitude to you for fixing my edits. I also gave you a "Thank You" with a smiling chat box graphic as well. Have a good day, and Happy belated New Year! :) Misterspaceman (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Misterspaceman, thanks for the explanation. I can sometimes be sensitive about perceived tone 😖

Anyway, I'm glad there is no misunderstanding or dispute regarding our respective edits. I think all I did, apart from formatting stuff, was to remove two duplicate references. Cheers, and happy new year to you as well! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:CHPTRS

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "CHPTRS".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Order of Ľudovít Štúr has been nominated for renaming

Category:Order of Ľudovít Štúr has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Newklear007 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Hey! Ever since I created the Teya Dora article, you have been an helpful editor in terms of improving the article and I never got to thank you for that.

However, I noticed you reverted my expansion of the lead, claiming the content is "unreferenced". But is it though? This edit is clearly supported by a citation of the artist's participation on the upcoming music competition. --Azor (talk). 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @--Azor, I see that now, thanks for mentioning it. That was my error, but if I could suggest you be a bit more clear in your edit summaries, it would help other editors understand your edits better. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hendy

I've read your comment at User talk:Nina&John Hendy, where you refer to them as "a single-issue, disruptive user". I totally agree, and I did consider blocking the account right away, but decided to just add another warning to the one you had already posted, and then watch for further editing. So far the account hasn't edited since I gave them that warning, and if it stays like that there won't be any need to do anything. However, if the same thing starts up again, either from the same account or from another one, I will be willing to reconsider blocking. JBW (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Tian Mi Mi

Do not revert other people's edits especially when they have added a large amount of content and sources to the article. You may have added citations needed tags before, but I was in the process of adding additional sources to the article and you provided no reason for your revert. If you have concerns, I suggest you explain them on the talk page before deleting sourced content. Thank you. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nkon21, apologies for the wholesale revert. However, in the future, you should endeavour to provide an edit summary, and this way, your work is less likely to be considered questionable. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You don’t need to accuse me on starting an edit war. All I did was providing an edit summary. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nkon21, I'm confused: you engage in an edit war with me, but you don't want me to point it out to you?

If you are certain that the song was released through Polydor, you must demonstrate it with a reference, not simply claim it to be true. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion on The Little Mole

I'd like to ask why you reverted my edit to The Little Mole (here). The current statement ('commuter train') is arguably as much Wikipedia:OR as 'long distance train' or 'indicating the family section'. I would argue citing a source in this figure caption would be an example of WP:Overcite, however, if you really wish, I can add a reference to e.g. this article. DWeir (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DWeir, please consider adding a greeting when communicating with someone—it makes if feel less like you're poking your finger in my chest angrily. I explained my revert in my edit summary: A commuter train is easily recognizable based on its form, whereas "indicating the family section" is not only purely speculative (as far as we know, the entire train could be decorated with the same design), but it seems like unnecessary detail for an image caption. Hope that helps. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Heo Sung-tae

But some filmographies like Stellar, Big Forest, and Bait does not have linked entries - Jjpachano (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jjpachano, I appreciate your message, but you should know that I'm much more receptive when people use courtesy, which includes saying hello first. I understand your point, but I don't think it's a justification. There are many filmographies that need cleanup. Personally, I think a selected filmography should mainly include linked entries, with few exceptions. This makes the article more tidy, especially when an actor has a large oeuvre. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Niumataiwalu

Hey! I put some references. Thanks for help!—Miha (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Bare urls

Please read the following taken from Template:Cleanup bare URLs

Bare URLs—add this tag

• http://www.example.org/page.html

Good citations—do not add this tag

• Fuster V, Walsh RA, Harrington RA, eds. Hurst's The Heart. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011. http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=7812984.
• Fuster V, Walsh RA, Harrington RA, eds. Hurst's The Heart. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.

So please do not add bare url templates to the pages where there is no bare reference, Egeymi (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Egeymi, I believe you are mistaken. I think the page is replete with bare urls. They are not mere links, as is shown in the "add this tag" category on Template:Cleanup bare URLs, since they also include a title, but no other identifying information is provided, such as cite template, website/source, date, date accessed, etc. Please look at refs 6–22; do you not consider these bare urls? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In the cases you mentioned we don't use bare url template, but another one, full citation is needed. So please use the correct template, Egeymi (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Fally Ipupa and Koffi Olomide

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku. I was wondering if you could proofread the Fally Ipupa and Koffi Olomide articles that I have been working on since last year. I have expanded both articles, which were previously stubs. The Fally Ipupa article has been promoted to a "C-Class"; however, the Koffi Olomide review is still pending.

Thanks! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, no problem, I'll add them to the top of my list 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, thanks for your extensive work on Koffi Olomide's article. That was some solid work, fam. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@EdwinAlden.1995, I appreciate the kind words. It's a hefty article, so I had to do it in sections, but it's also a fun project—you're teaching me about African music, something I knew almost nothing about until now! I'm not quite done with it, by the way ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, thanks for keeping me in the loop! I'm glad you're finding the article satisfying despite its length. I am a music nerd, and Congolese music it's such a rich and diverse subject. Take your time with it, and I can't wait to peep the final piece! Let me know if you need any more info or help along the way. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, there are a couple of points in the Fally Ipupa that I need more clarity on:

1. What is the meaning of "conductor" in the context of the bands in question? Is this actually the correct term, or would manager/director be more appropriate?

2. What is Quartier Latin Académia, and what is its relationship to Quartier Latin International?

3. What is the meaning of "Anelka"? If it needs to be mentioned, then it should also be translated.

Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, apologies for the delayed response. Let me clarify some points here:

1. In the context of a band, a "conductor" is a musician who plays a crucial role in conveying the band leader's vision for the music to the other musicians. The conductor also has the authority to bring in new musicians, but the band leader must approve any newcomers. While the conductor is subordinate to the band leader, they are still considered more important than other members of the band.
2. Quartier Latin Académia, which is now known as Collective A, is a Congolese music group led by Sam Tshintu. It was founded in February 1991 by Dolce Parabolique Somono and Lebou Kabuya, who were both former members of Koffi Olomide's Quarter Latin International. The collective was formed by several musicians who had left Koffi Olomide's band after not receiving the promised amount or value of the bonus for their performance at the two historic concerts in the iconic halls of Olympia Hall, Zenith de Paris, Brixton Academy, and others. They named their newly formed band Quartier Latin Académia. During the 1990s, Koffi Olomide's band was the most prominent, and many musicians left their own bands to join his Quarter Latin International. The band Talent Latent, for instance, slipped into obscurity due to consecutive departures of its musicians, including Fally Ipupa himself.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you need further clarification. Best regards. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, your response wasn't delayed on my end, since I went to sleep shortly after posting my comment 😁

Thanks for the explanations. This usage of the word "conductor" seems unorthodox, so unless it's regional, I suspect it may be incorrect, and this is why I asked if a different term could be used, like director or manager. Alternatively, is there a source that could substantiate this novel usage of "conductor"?

I had also asked about the nickname "Anelka". If it doesn't have any lexical meaning, I think it should be omitted.

Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, "conductor" might not be the best choice for the intended audience's readability and clarity as it is a regional term. Instead, using "director" or "manager" would be clearer and more appropriate. Though there exists validation for the usage of "conductor," I am inclined to agree with your proposition.

As for the name "Anelka," it refers to the French professional footballer Nicolas Sébastien Anelka, who transferred to Real Madrid for £22.3 million in 1999. This transfer was considered one of the most expensive of that year. Coincidentally, in the same year, Fally Ipupa joined Quartier Latin International. His arrival was accompanied by the nickname "Anelka," as a tribute to Nicolas Anelka's transfer. This nickname was given to Fally Ipupa because his own transfer was also seen as the "most expensive transfer." EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, thanks for the explanation—I've gone ahead and made the change from conductor to director. Thanks also for clarifying Anelka! I feel foolish, because the answer was staring me in the face the whole time 🤦🏼‍♂️ Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, you're welcome! We all miss the obvious sometimes. I'm glad I could help clarify things for you EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, in the 2022 Stade des Martyrs crowd crush section of the Fally Ipupa article, I don't think it's necessary to mention the two cancelled shows that preceded the fateful event; it doesn't add anything for the reader in terms of the section topic. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, You are absolutely correct, and removing those two redundant statements concerning the canceled concerts is critical. As you pointed out, the canceled shows wouldn't compromise the reader's comprehension of the section's topic since these statements don't provide any substantial information. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, thanks for meticulously proofreading the article and for rectifying any grammatical errors. Your keen eye for detail is much appreciated. I would have suggested more articles, but I see that you have many projects to work on. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@EdwinAlden.1995, glad we agree on the concert topic. Thanks for the kind words, I'm glad you've found my input valuable. I was actually thinking yesterday that there's doubtless many other articles you and I could collaborate on, as it seems you are quite busy fleshing out many music-related pages (doing great work on that front, by the way!) I'd like to focus on a few pages that are at the top of my list at the moment and which I've neglected due to a busy schedule, but give me a few months, and I'll have time to tackle another one of your musical projects 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, I'm really flattered you think of me as a music article whiz! 😄 I'm glad you're enjoying working on the music pages. I know you've been busy, so no worries about taking a break. Just let me know when you're ready to jump back in and we can brainstorm some ideas! EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@EdwinAlden.1995, will do! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, in your latest edit on the Koffi Olomide page, you added two "Africar" awards. I just wanted to check if that was intentional, or if you meant to write "African". Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Revirvlkodlaku, thanks for your inquiry. After consulting various sources, including Radio France Internationale (RFI) and other reputable outlets, it has been confirmed that the correct spelling of the award is "Africar," as opposed to the commonly assumed "African." EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, in the International success and emergence of homegrown bands section of the Congolese rumba page, there is mention of an "Aficanus Society". I'd like to clarify what this society is, and whether or not its name has been spelled correctly. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Revirvlkodlaku, I also initially thought it was a typo and that "Africanus Society" was the correct term. However, after reviewing Clément Ossinondé's work, I found that he referred to it as "Société Aficanus" in French, which translates to "Aficanus Society" in English. It appears that "Aficanus Society" may not be a typographical error after all. Thus, I can confidently verify that this translation accurately represents the intended designation.

Best regards, Edwin Alden. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@EdwinAlden.1995, thanks for the response. Perhaps it should be clarified on the page what the society is all about? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I searched for information on the "Africanus Society" but came up empty-handed. Despite my thorough search, there were no relevant results. I am uncertain whether the society is not well-known or if there is simply a scarcity of available sources. That's all the information I have at the moment. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@EdwinAlden.1995, fair enough, thank you for the effort. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, on the Congolese rumba page, could you provide more clarity as to the meaning of "antiphonal"? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, apologies for my delayed response. I have now added a hyperlink to the term "antiphonal" in its corresponding article to help the audience more conveniently understand its meaning. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EdwinAlden.1995, in your latest edit on Koffi Olomide, you mention tcha tcho, which is also mentioned elsewhere in the article. You likely have a better idea of this than I do, and I didn't want to re-read the entire page, but is it explained anywhere in the article what tcha tcho is? Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, tcha tcho is a musical style thoroughly described in the article's section "1985–1986: Diva, Tcha Tcho, Ngobila, and Quartier Latin International." It is characterized as a slower variant of soukous. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@EdwinAlden.1995, ah yes, I see that now. That was an easy one, actually; thanks for indulging my laziness 🫣 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit overlaps

Sorry about edit overlaps with you at The Truth Will Out. Some of those were accidental: I hadn't seen your intervening edits as I was also editing there. I'll try to be more careful.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @shaidar cuebiyar, no worries, but thanks for reaching out. I'm happy we are collaborating on improving the page 🙂 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Zouk: Removal of picture

Hi, Can you clarify why you removee the picture of Jacob Desvarieux from Kassav', the pioners of Zouk, in the Zouk page?

Have the best. 2001:2042:302E:ED00:1CF1:F04A:90C3:D711 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sure, the reason was that the picture wasn't properly formatted or situated, and insufficient context was provided as to what it depicted, and since I was in a rush, I didn't take the time to research it. The image seems fine in terms of permissions, so I don't mind if you restore it, but it needs to be properly formatted and contextualized. What makes that difficult is that the Kassav' page itself is a mess, with very few references, so it's not clear to me that Desvarieux is the pioneer you claim he is. Before anything further is done with the image and the zouk page, I would like to see the Kassav' page cleaned up and properly referenced. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody should have to "check iTunes"

Nobody should have to "check iTunes" to verify something. It should be sourced on the article per WP:V. Something as important as an artist's upcoming album should be sourced with a quality news source. The user you reverted my revert of has now been indefinitely blocked for habitually adding unsourced information. If that's the kind of behaviour that gets somebody indefinitely blocked, those are not the sort of edits we should be restoring, and clearly "checking iTunes" is not sufficient. If it were, they wouldn't now be blocked. Ss112 15:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ss112, I disagree with you about iTunes. Most discographies on WP do not reference each existing release, and when upcoming releases are easily verifiable on an established music service like iTunes, a reference isn't required either. Anyway, I see that you've found a ref for it, so it's all good. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trattoria&diff=prev&oldid=1216821344

Absolutely nothing against you, but you haven't changed anything in this edit (in the past, I have rightly suffered unpleasant consequences for such aesthetic "changes"). JacktheBrown (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JacktheBrown, can you please clarify what you are trying to convey? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: nothing, just curiosity. A great day! JacktheBrown (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@JacktheBrown, just to clarify, I've always left a line break between images and text. I find this makes it easier for editors to locate images within text. As for images at the beginning of an article, it makes more sense (to me) to lump them with other non-text markup, such as the infobox, so that's what I've always done. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

‘Udon’, as an English word

Hi, David, in the yakisoba article, I had rendered it as ‘yaki udon’ specifically because ‘udon’ is considered a Japanese loanword to English; it has common usage within English, per MOS:FOREIGN. Despite “yaki udon” in its entirety being taken from Japanese, only the ‘yaki’ part needs to be treated as a foreign word, per the MOS. So, in the yakisoba article: it should be ‘sara udon’ and ‘yaki udon’.        —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@I'llbeyourbeach, that makes sense, thanks for pointing it out. I'll go ahead and fix it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! I had, uh, thanked you for the edit where you also italicised “udon” because I misread the diffs and thought you did the same thing to “sara udon”, but thank you frfr for that now. <3        —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hirokin

Hi Revirvlkodlaku,
You correctly reverted the edit that contained a copyright violation on Hirokin, and are correct in saying that there is no longer a copyright issue. However, our revision deletion criterion WP:RD1 requires that the actual historical page revisions (the two ones I specified in the template) are redacted by an administrator as they contain copyrighted content.
The template is not shown to logged-out users and should be removed soon once the page revisions are hidden from the public archives. Please do ask me if you have any questions. – Isochrone (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nada Surf

Hi. I'm confused: Why is there a template for citing a press release, if (according to you) a press release doesn't qualify as a source? As for the other source, I thought I was citing the album cover notes (also per Wikipedia template), with a wikilink to the article about the album, but not implying that the Wikipedia article was the source. Apologies if I did that wrong. Please clarify if you can. Jcejhay (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If I redo the edits, I can also add this source, a review of Never Not Together in an online music mag that refers to "frequent collaborator Doug Gillard"—i.e., collaborator, not band member: https://whenthehornblows.com/content/2020/2/9/album-review-nada-surf-never-not-together Jcejhay (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

As you know, it can be difficult to document a negative (i.e., the absence of a former band member), but I also see that Pop Matters on Never Not Together has text and photo documenting the post-Gillard lineup. I'm going to redo the edits in good faith now, citing all four sources, and I hope you won't revert again or leave any more unnecessarily disparaging edit summaries. I'm here, if you'd like to have a constructive conversation.

https://www.popmatters.com/nada-surf-never-not-together-2645126135.html Jcejhay (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jcejhay, I've read through all the articles used to support Doug Gillard's inclusion in the band, and none of them actually state that, so I've removed all mention of him from the article, except as a supporting member in the band members section.

I do apologize for my edit summary. It wasn't disparaging in any way—please look that word up before accusing someone—but it was certainly snarky, and that's uncalled for. Thanks for bringing the issue up with me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping make the article better, and for the apology. Of course, I do know what "disparaging" means, and publicly suggesting that I was trying to foist non-sources on the community fits the bill, imho. (Maybe you should look it up? I like how M-W Unabridged covers it.) Jcejhay (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jcejhay, I don't think it does—the most you could say is that I made insinuations—but that's ok, we don't need to argue semantics. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the first word that came to mind was the word you used—"snarky." I went with "disparaging" in an effort to be tactful. Anyway, have a good one. Jcejhay (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Lambert Hamel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lambert Hamel, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambert Hamel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kassav', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBS Records.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Responder

I'm sorry, but I do not see your logic in reverting my edit to remove Bernard Hill from the cast. It really didn't matter he didn't have a character name (at the time), he was reliably sourced by the BBC as being part of the series as it was now something that would be posthumous for him.

Really wonky logic for a needless revert. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Rusted AutoParts, I'm always open to discuss the edits I make with those who disagree with them, and you did the right thing to bring it up with me, but my willingness to have a conversation becomes frayed when my interlocutor thinks it's ok to be rude to me on my talk page. I haven't harmed you in any way, so there's no call for rudeness. You could have told me that you disagreed with my revert and left it at that, instead of adding your bit about "wonky logic". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how describing the line of thinking is rude? I'm not saying there's something wrong with you, I just don't get the reasoning. "If no character is added, what's the point of including the actor?", why does not having a character name result in the actor, who was reliably sourced as being cast in the series, needing to be removed from the page? I'm sorry if you're interpreting this as rudeness, that's not the intention. I'm just....confused. Rusted AutoParts 02:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts, "I just don't get the reasoning" and "wonky logic" are two VERY different statements, and I'm sure you must realize that.

I didn't have a strong case for removing Hill—it just didn't make sense to me to include him if the reader was left unaware of his character in the show. Anyway, he is back now, with a character to boot, so all's well, and this should be no more than a clarificatory conversation, not a confrontational one. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I really don't get how me assessing the removal as having "wonky logic" is being rude nor me coming here to ask for some clarification as being "confrontational" but it seems we're just going to be agreeing to disagree on this. Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts, I don't know why this is so difficult for you to see. Just because you disagree with or dislike something doesn't make it "wonky", or anything else, for that matter. That's akin to describing food you don't like as being bad.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You said that because he had no character name, there's no point in listing the actor as part of the cast and deleted him. This really makes no sense because he was still verifiably confirmed as part of the cast, we just didn't have a character name yet. A plethora of upcoming films or shows has instances of announcing cast without giving out a character name, this has never made it an issue in adding them into the cast list. This is why I assessed your reversion as wonky, because no character name didn't mean his being in the show was not true. This was not me saying you yourself are wonky, or your decision making process as a whole is wonky, this lone instance I have seen was what I found wonky, or misguided, or whichever word to describe an edit not being a logical one. It was by no means used with the intention to be rude towards you, or confrontational, or hostile, or any kind of antagonistic approach. It was simply the word I wound up using to describe the edit, that's all. I'm sorry you're taking such umbrage to it, but there was really nothing personal about it. Rusted AutoParts 03:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts, it may not make sense to you, but it made sense to me, so it's subjective, not wonky. Anyway, thanks for explaining, I feel better now :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Debustrol

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Debustrol".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austronesian peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penannular.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

cc note

hiya, minor note about coal chamber. im not adding white space, is probably the mobile editor doing that. ty. Chchcheckit (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chchcheckit, thanks for mentioning it. I've often wondered why some editors do this, and it never occurred to me that it might be automatically generated. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chchcheckit, by the way, please stop using profanity in edit summaries. I've now twice seen you use the word "shit". It's not that I think it's bad or wrong—I just don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And you know what? I will. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, seriously, this is the first time anyone’s called me out on it. You’re right. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chchcheckit, thank you for the positive response. It's easy to expect snark on Wikipedia, because it's so common, and therefore it's refreshing when once in a while, a user can acknowledge a point you're trying to make, even if it's critical of them. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I recognise that in days of wiki past i was a bit of an pseudo-opinionated asshole and couldn't recognise the implications of things I did, long story but most of it is probably the autism/adhd and lack of good parenting. Since recognizing my issues around last year thanks to a regretful incident, I've definitely tried to get away from that part of myself, though there are probably still heuristics and other things I haven't noticed yet. So for me, any advice is good advice.

On why this is relevant; because the last thing i ever want or intend to do is upset people, and I need to grow up. Chchcheckit (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chchcheckit, once again, that's much appreciated. Thank you also for the reminder that likely a significant proportion of regular Wiki editors is neurodivergent, and not simply assholes—something I need to keep in mind when I feel reactive.

"in days of wiki past"—I like that 😉 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Phoenician ship expedition

What historical expedition was this? The lead says speculated. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I guess that's a fair point (do you not say hello to people when starting a conversation?), but I'm curious to see what comes of this discussion, so perhaps we should leave it in the meantime? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, we’ll see. I am often terse, not being rude. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller no worries, I appreciate the clarification. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Luba CBC documentary

Hi Revirvlkodlaku, I am a new editor/contributor, and I would appreciate having a better understanding of my mistakes in adding a new section about Luba's documentary special entitled "Luba, Between the Earth and Sky" which aired on CBC on October 30, 1987. Unfortunately I wasn't aware that I hadn't properly logged on prior to making this addition. That was my first mistake. I am aware now that IMDB should not be used as a reliable source. However the other citations included were the Toronto Star, and the reliable magazines "Cinema Canada" and "Canadian Musician". I was planning to add additional citations today from the Globe and Mail. I uploaded the photo of Luba from the concert as non-free, fair-use, acknowledging the source and copyright as a publicity photo from production company, Cambium Productions' press kit, which was used extensively to promote the TV special. I would appreciate your help. Thanks. Wiredwidget Wiredwidget (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wiredwidget, thanks for reaching out. The reason I removed the images was because they both appeared to be missing appropriate permissions, and they were flagged on Wikimedia.

As for the paragraph you added about the documentary, apart from the IMDB references, which you're now aware of, all other references were simply titles without links, which I didn't find helpful. If you can provide those references, with external links, then I don't see a problem with the content (though I will still copy edit it, of course). Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

INFO:NAT

This might help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Nationality_and_citizenship

Rodericksilly (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Zuby Nehty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zuby Nehty, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuby Nehty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Kirill Käro

Stop reverting. Having ancestors from some country won't make a person actor etc of this country. Mena Suvari is half Estonian (her father was Estonian), but she isn't listed as American-Estonian actor. His acting career is all Russian. He does not speak Estonian. Also in case of Baltic States do not use the names of illegal entities set up by the occupier as birth places. These were internationally unrecognised organisations that had no sovereignty over the territories they acted on. Same as Donetsk People's Republic etc today. Governments of Baltic states continued to work in exile, diplomatic missions continued and were recognised by the western states. State continuity of the Baltic states. Executive zombie (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Same with Yuliya Aug who is from Narva. It does not say that she is Estonian actress. Russian actor, director, director and screenwriter with Estonian roots, Also Käro "Russian theater and film actor Kirill Käro was born on February 24, 1975 in Tallinn." Executive zombie (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok @bud, first things first: check your attitude. You do not come posting on my talk page without a basic level of courtesy and give me orders; you will not make any headway with me using that attitude. You are a new, inexperienced user, and as such, the least you should do is act with humility and courtesy toward more experienced editors.

Now, as for Kirill Käro, the page says he is Estonian (though the supporting reference is a dead link, unfortunately); he was born in Estonia; his father is Estonian-Russian; he has an Estonian name; his cousin Volli Käro is Estonian, etc. What exactly is your argument? If you have any solid reasons for your claims that Käro is not Estonian, start a talk page discussion, stop edit warring, and don't be a jerk to other editors. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was your attitude, started to threaten with warning if someone does edits that you don't like.

Which page says that? It's not relatives that makes someone an actor or other personality of a country, As Mena Suvari whose father is Estonian isn't called Estonian-American actor, or Yuliya Aug who also has Estonian roots. His career is Russian based. He is known as a Russian actor. Executive zombie (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Executive zombie, it's not "attitude" to tell a disruptive editor to stop edit warring—it's policy. As I said in my previous comment, start a talk page discussion if you have an issue with the page content, and stop posting on my talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a disagreement. You reverting my edits is not less "disruptive" as my edits. Can we find common ground, that's the way of wikipedia. Not gatekeeping and telling others that their opinions are disruptive etc. I added source instead of the dead one.Executive zombie (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Executive zombie, you seem to be confused about what "disruptive editing" means. I can tell you that reverting bad edits is not it, so you're making a (self-serving) false equivalency. Regardless, I'll do my best to find common ground with you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

'Alone at Prom' Genre Addition

There was a user named DollysOnMyMind who is now banned as a sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso. They reverted my edit of adding the "electro" genre to the 'Alone at Prom' article because they believed it violated WP: EXPLICITGENRE. The source's description of "electro" was quite direct, as a quote from the source stated, "Rekindling a forgotten sound by way of luscious synths, funky strings and crunchy, electro drum patterns..." Should I restore the edit from the sockpuppet, or was there something from WP:EXPLICITGENRE that I missed?

The source: electro Misterspaceman (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Misterspaceman, per the source, it appears you were correct to include the electro genre, so if I were you, I would restore it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Charles Soludo

Please can you stop reversing my additions on the Charles Soludo articles. I think the information been added are necessary Obi Trice 19 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Obi Trice 19, I'm not just reverting your edits for fun. I've explained my reasons in the edit summary: the content you are adding is either non-neutral, meaning, you've included all kinds of non-neutral adjectives to embellish Soluldo's character or accomplishments, or you've added a bunch of publications that Soludo has only contributed to, which I don't think is necessary, as there is no attempt to make an exhaustive list of all the things he has ever written. If you disagree with my reasoning on either of these, please start a discussion on the appropriate talk page to allow other editors to chime in as well. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

'Isolation' and 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' by Joy Division

I have attempted to update the genres for both of Joy Division's albums, but they have been reverted because the articles were adequately covered and met a popular consensus. However, I have two things to discuss: A well-sourced genre for "techno-pop" on the article for 'Isolation' was reverted because it "only referred to the chorus." I reverted the well-sourced "synth-pop" for 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' out of fear of the same thing happening. The reverter is named FMSky. Do these genres deserve to be removed, or should I restore them?

The source: (similar to AllMusic's rock music guide) Misterspaceman (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, good morning from Washington, DC! :) Misterspaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Misterspaceman, it would have been helpful if you had linked the pages in question so I didn't have to go searching for them. I'm not very familiar with Joy Division songs, and genres are notoriously difficult to pinpoint. My suggestion to you would be to start a discussion with FMSky and see where it goes. Have you tried that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I've talked to FMSky just a few hours ago and I'm currently awaiting a response. I also apologize for not linking the articles. I do not know the "coding" to type that directory in. Have a good evening! :) Misterspaceman (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Misterspaceman, I'm glad you reached out to FMSky about this. Hopefully, the issue can be resolved amicably.

What did you mean by "'coding' to type that directory in"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well on their talk page Misterspaceman got that message which was about what was a self-published source: it must have been understood because Misterspaceman erased it [1] Woovee (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Misterspaceman, what gives? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions

I concede that a mention of India in the short description of Climate of Bihar is helpful; however, every Wikipedia article is an overview of something: therefore, starting a short description with "overview of", "review of", "summary of", or similar phrases is useless, unless the article is something like Literature review whose topic is itself an overview/review/summary/etc. —LucasBrown 04:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@LucasBrown, I see the point you're making, but I disagree. I don't think the word "overview" is either redundant or useless. I consider it to be a practical introductory word for the rest of the short description, and it reads better than "The climate of the Indian state", not to mention that Wikipedia:Short description discourages the use of initial articles (a, an, the). Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Rimini Protokoll

Hi David, good to meet you. I have seen that you reverted one of my changes on Rimini Protokoll because I did not cite properly. I fully understand you position. Perhaps you can help me sort out, what kind of references we need here. Until now, I am only familiar with standards of the German and a few other language WP-project, where we usually did not reference in the introducing abstract. My experience in En-WP is long-standing, but scarce. I will subsequently provide theatre studies literature, which I already referenced in the "edit summary". Additionally I found a lot more sources, such as eg F. LeRoy: Rimini Protokoll's Theatricalization of Reality, in: Bastard or Playmate?: Adapting Theatre, Mutating Media and Contemporary Performing Arts, 2012, pp. 153-160, at 153. [2] I guess this and a few other articles I found on Jstor, could be a good foundation to revise and extend the article which is desperatly in need of reliable sources. What do you think? ... Looking forward to hear your advice, --Olag (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Olag, in your edit summary, you made the claim that Rimini Protokoll isn't a theatre group but rather a label used by the group. The content of the article doesn't seem to support this claim, and to my knowledge, neither do the provided references (I admit that I haven't read them, however). Are you able to provide a source that clearly states that RP isn't the name of the group itself? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks that you make clear what you ve read and have not. I just read the provided article (above with link). It actually identifies RP as a label (as does RP themselves, btw on their website). The German translation of the text cited in the edit summary also does it in the blurb. But thanks for mentioning that the English version might differ, I will check this asap and will make a suggestion in the part of the article further below under the abstract of how to resolve this question. Of course you are right in that Rimini Protokoll is sometimes called a group of 3, but considering their method of work, big parts of the literature rather call it a collective or a label which involves many more contributors but of which the three are the founders. Even in the productions of RP they are working in different constellations one two or three (and more cooperators) while directing a piece. Let's keep evaluation that on the basis of articles of theatre studies etc.---Olag (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Olag, I'm a little confused by what you mean when you say "I just read the provided article (above with link)", and even though the website does mention "theatre-label", I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean—it may also be a subtle mistranslation. The truth is, I'm not a theatre person, so I don't even know what a "label" would be, in this context. Anyway, let's please keep this discussion where it belongs, on the Rimini Protokoll talk page.

One more thing I'll point out is that you are quick to publish, and then you do multiple follow-up edits. This is fine in most cases, but when writing on another user's talk page, it just creates unnecessary notifications (I had five for your first comment and six for the second one), which is a little annoying. Please consider editing your message before hitting publish. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I will link this discussion there, if you do not mind.--Olag (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting well sourced parts of the article and please do not make unfounded allegiations about me being blocked. I actually do not know what you are talking about.--Olag (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Olag, my apologies for the false allegation. I misread the discussion on your talk page, where it actually states that the user who accused you of vandalism has been blocked.

As for the Rimini Protokoll article, this isn't the place to discuss it. I've explained in my revert why I did so. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the appropriate talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, actually this is not an article issue, but a personal issue, because you vandalized parts of the article, which were well sourced. You even admit (above) that you did not care to read the open access sources + that you are "not a theatre person". So I would be happy if you justify your revisions thoroughly on the discussion page.--Olag (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Olag, you just changed the dynamic of this conversation. Unfounded accusations of vandalism can be reported, and you may be censured. Watch what you say, and stop writing on my talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"Common sense" punctuation

Hi, a link to a guideline, please. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, context please? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Your reverts at Tango in the Night, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, here you go: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It says, When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. There are multiple errors of terminal punctuation situated outside the closing quotation mark, introduced here. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, remind me where you stand: punctuation inside quotation marks or outside? I generally place it outside, which is what the MOS suggests, except when it's a direct quote that contains punctuation, in which case, I leave it as is. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My position is just what the MOS says in the part I quoted, really, that when quoting a full sentence, punctuation goes inside the quotation mark. These appear to be full sentences, although I think the quotes on this article are generally too long. When quoting sentence fragments, part-phrases or words, punctuation goes outside. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, it seems we are in full agreement then! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, so shall I go through Tango in the Night and ensure the punctuation is as it should be? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, that works for me! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Soord moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bruce Soord. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Currently no indication of being notable. Profiles and blogs aren't sufficient referencing.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sikh diaspora

Your revert of my painstaking edits to the Sikh diaspora article are lazy and bad faith. Your reasoning -- "Reverting what appear to be motivated edits; please discuss on talk page." -- is absurd. All edits are motivated, in this case by a motivation to improve the article, which they do. Are you too lazy to read my edit summaries and review the changes/diffs? Do you think you own the article? 50.75.202.186 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm wary of large-scale edits by unregistered users, especially when they don't provide satisfactory explanations for content removal. India-related topics are especially contentions, and that only adds to my caution.

It seems you misunderstood my use of the word "motivated"—I meant it to suggest that you have a personal motive to change the article to your preferred version. I may have been mistaken, but I invited you to discuss the topic on the talk page, per BRD. The invitation stands, and your painstaking work isn't lost, so all you have to do is be civil in your discourse, and I don't see why we couldn't reach an agreement.

I will let you know that I do not tolerate abusive messages and accusations of bad faith. If you do this again, my willingness to engage in a discussion with you will immediately vanish. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 50.75.202.186 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Anak Jalanan

I have added a reference to Anak Jalanan. Why did you return it? Are those references not enough? 182.0.226.6 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

In Indonesian, The references I added are more reliable than the previous references. 182.0.226.6 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please, check. Thankyou. 182.0.226.6 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This conversation belongs on the Anak Jalanan talk page, so let's have it there. I'm open to what you have to say, but please stop imposing your preferred version of the page until we have reached an understanding. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Firefest, Dino Jelusick

Hello, with regard to your recent revert. I'd have to say I disagree. Not with the fact that we (editors/Wiki) do not/should not list everything such as all appearances by an artist, but in this specific instance I'd say Firefest is significant enough to warrant a mention. I accept it does not have a Wiki page at present, but that's something I hope to address in the near future. I see many things on Wiki that are of far less overall significance in the big scheme of things than Firefest, and these still have pages, and quite sizeable pages in some cases.

Firefest is quite a thing here in the UK, and a quick Google will see it mentioned many many times in relevant media. Hence I have opted to reinstate my original edit.

If you are not convinced by my preceding words, rather than begin and edit war, could I suggest we throw the 'mention or not' topic open to the wider Wiki community, and then run with whatever their consensus might be? Fair? SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@SurfaceAgentX2Zero, it's fine for you to disagree, but let me point out a few things:

My personal talk page is not the place to discuss a content disagreement—that's what the article talk page is for; please take the discussion there.

"Firefest is significant enough"... according to what or whom? It's not enough to simply claim this to be true—this is why the issue should be discussed on the talk page.

I didn't begin an edit war, you did. I engaged in BRD, which is entirely legitimate and appropriate. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Kumis

Hello, I'd like to understand your intention behind reverting my edit without a proper explanation.

Kumis is a drink that belongs to all the steppes. Mongolians are East Asians, not Central Asians. Furthermore, the term 'Mongolic' refers to groups such as the Kalmyk, Mongolian, Khitan, and Buryat peoples.

This is akin to labeling all Turkic nations as Turkish. Or in your case, labeling Czech (a slavic nation) as Slovaks. I believe it’s unnecessary to specify where Central Asia is. Mongolians and Mongolic nations are East Asians, and they consumed kumis in the eastern steppes, not in Uzbekistan.

Thanks for reading. Have a nice day! 176.216.236.232 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, I think we're actually saying the same thing, just using slightly different words. I've made a few modifications that should satisfy both our preferences. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Your details made the article a lot better. 176.216.236.49 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, glad to hear it :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Lobby (band)

Oops! I wasn't meant to add "sports"! I added Notability tag due to lack of enough coverage for the band; GNG requires multiple, not just one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Clariniie, can you please provide context for this comment? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant I would appreciate it if anyone could find significant coverage of the band. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Clariniie, that's not what I meant by context. If you're going to post on someone's talk page about something or other, you need to make it clear what you're talking about, especially if you've waited close to a week to bring it up. In this case, what you should have done was include the specific edit you're referring to, with a link. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording discussion

First off, I'm confused as to why you refuse to start a discussion and continue to revert, despite past warnings and blocks about it. But bad decision making aside, why do you act like "released" is a bad word or something as you suggest here. I'm not aware of any concerted effort to avoid the word. I'd understand if it was over used, but we're talking about the very fist usage of the word in the article. Please help me understand your continued efforts to add awkward synonyms to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, I'll gladly have a civil discussion with you, but your aggressive and snarky attitude won't get us far. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Forgive my exasperation but your insufficient summaries and refusal to discuss is disappointing for an editor as experienced as yourself. "Published" is not common wording for the release of a song. It's common to say one published a book or an article, but not common for works of music like albums or songs. It's not common, for example, for one to say that the Smashing Pumpkins published Siamese Dream or "Cherub Rock" in 1993. Do you have an explanation or not? Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, you seem to be applying a double standard, not to mention an odd position on what is or isn't common=appropriate. Here's a few examples of edit summaries I've left: "Not bizarre; it's a contextual synonym, to avoid overused 'released'"; "It doesn't matter that it's not common—as long as it's contextually clear. Why do you stubbornly insist on wording that is unnecessarily repetitive?" Here are examples of yours: "context for releas"; "Bizarrely worded". Now tell me honestly, whose edit summaries are "insufficient"?!

As far as I'm aware, terms like "release", "publish", "issue", and "come out" are more or less equally appropriate for music as they are for books. You need to do more than suggest that something is or isn't common in order to justify needlessly repeating the same overused word ("release"). Not only is there no grammatical rule (or WP guideline) against using synonyms such as "publish" to refer to music, but your lack of exposure to such synonyms doesn't establish their inaccuracy or inappropriateness.

Finally, your exasperation with a dissenting opinion doesn't release you from the responsibility to be decent toward other users, nor does it give you the right to post aggressive messages on their talk pages. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it "overused" when it's the first use of the word in the article. You still haven't explained that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, before I edited it, the sentence read "It was released on March 29, 2024, and was the band's first new music release in six years, following 2018's Eat the Elephant. Do you see it now? The word "release" is used twice in the same sentence. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It would have been far less awkward to just remove the second use of "released" and not even replace it with anything. You retained the superfluous one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Whole language

You made three changes to my edits. You cited MOS for, presumably, two of them; however, the first punctuation change was to a complete sentence, which, as I read the (unusual) MOS statement on periods and quotation marks, says full sentences call for the period to be before the quotation mark. also, why did you revert my use of the prpoer name? With the pronoun, the sentence is not immediately clear as to which of the two men are being referred to. Kdammers (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Kdammers, a couple of housekeeping things first: it's polite to start a conversation with a greeting. When you omit this basic human ritual, you come across as combative, which I hope was not your attention. Secondly, it's courtesy to include a link to the diff/edit you're referring to instead of making the other editor go digging for it.

I didn't make three changes. As far as I can tell from the history, I just reverted one of your edits. I'll go see what you're referring to. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JeanetteMartin

Pickman's Model's revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pickman%27s_Model&diff=prev&oldid=1253532112

Care to explain why? It certainly makes for a poorer legibility of the bullet list.

79.19.132.227 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to write on my talk page, I ask that you be courteous. "Care to explain why" is not a courteous way to start a conversation.

The reason I reverted your edit is that it's simply not the standard way to list characters. Going forward, please bring up the issue on the appropriate talk page rather than on my user talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to apologize for the language; english is not my mother tongue and I've gone for brevity rather than politeness. Thank you for pointing this out.

I'll bring the issue on Pickman's Model's page.

79.19.132.227 (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.76.65.74.178 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Revirvlkodlaku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi @Daniel Case, I think you've allowed our history to unduly influence your decision regarding this matter. Here's a point-by-point account of the issue from my perspective, and hopefully it helps clarify why I felt justified in acting the way I did: I reverted this edit, the first by my adversarial editor, for reasons that should be obvious—it is grammatically unsound, unnecessary, and besides, since, as they themselves have pointed out, the mention of the single is unreferenced, then what value is there in adding a month of release? I didn't add an edit summary, since as an unregistered user performing subpar edits, there's no clear way for me to understand their motivation, and from my experience, it is common to revert such edits without providing a rationale. The same user then proceeded to revert back, so they in fact launched the edit war. I reverted again, since I had no reason to think this was a good-faith edit, and their tone certainly didn't suggest otherwise. Additionally, since they are not registered, there was no way for me to take up the issue with them directly on the talk page (not that I'm aware of, at least). This is what I meant in my edit summary when I said "Additionally, when you're ready to become a registered user, we can talk." I admit that my tone was not convivial, but all I meant was that there is no way for me to engage in a dialogue with an unregistered user, unless they themselves initiate said dialogue. At this point, the user switched tack and instead of simply re-adding their preferred "in July", they decided to delete all mention of the single's release. This seemed inappropriate to me, since, as I mentioned more than once, the single is widely attested online, and in my experience, it isn't necessary to reference all releases that can easily be verified. I proceeded to revert back (all the while believing that I was in the right, since I was operating on extensive precedent), and I made a few other minor edits. User then reverted back, etc. I'll reiterate here that I think the editor was mistaken from the start, first by adding "in July" and later by removing all mention of the single release, and I simply stood by that. I don't think the primary onus was on me to start a discussion, since I was merely maintaining a solid version of the page that they were adulterating with subpar edits (this isn't "ownership", by the way, but "monitoring", an important difference the user seems to have missed in their eagerness to lob cheap shots at me, likely after scouring my talk page), and I had no easy way to engage them in dialogue. While I acknowledge that I did breach 3RR, I think this is a trivial point, given that I was doing what I consider my responsibility toward the WP platform, to the extent of my capacity. I'll finish by pointing out that by blocking me, you are not performing a service to the WP community. I am an experienced, established, consistently engaged, and productive editor who has not only proofread thousands of pages but created over a hundred new ones—clearly I'm an asset to the platform—and while I may be occasionally combative, the harm caused by this attitude is far outweighed by the good I do. Each time you place a block on my account due to my breach of a rule and a minor kerfuffle, you not only deprive me of a valuable, meaningful activity, but you in fact deprive the platform of my positive contributions to it. Besides the fact the the more this happens, the greater the risk that I will eventually sour on this entire enterprise, seeing the heavy-handedness of its admins, but the reality is that the "punishment" you are administering is grossly disproportionate to the offence—breaking 3RR against an unregistered user who hasn't benefited the platform in any measurable way. May I also suggest that in future, rather than going straight for the stick, you could try using the carrot instead—maybe just talking to me about the issue and figuring out what's actually going on, rather than siding with some unknown user whose motives are unclear? In a nutshell, I think you've misjudged the situation, and you've penalized a valuable editor over a trivial, procedural point rather than a real offense. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

IPs are humans too. They also have talk pages for discussion with them; as you've been here since 2007 I'm finding it difficult to believe that you weren't aware of that- but okay, sure, we all see and use Wikipedia differently. The onus is on everyone to discuss disputes. Only you can control your actions. Yes, this is a minor kerfuffle, and I might have ended the block now if not for the contempt of IP users you displayed and the failure of you as a longtime user to know how to address disputes. I hope my decline doesn't lead you to throw away your substantial career, but that's a decision only you can make. Maybe someone else will disagree, but that's how I see it. I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are addressing the blocking administrator, but an unblock request is to ask for a third party to review the matter. If you wish to negotiate with the blocking admin, you don't need to make an unblock request. Do you want to attempt to negotiate with DanielCase first, or would you like a third party(me) to review this? 331dot (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@331dot, I would like a third-party review, please. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@331dot, I'm not denying that IPs are human or that they are entitled to edit WP. I genuinely wasn't aware that unregistered users have talk pages (you may find that hard to believe, but that is not sufficient grounds for suggesting that I'm being disingenuous in claiming ignorance, and besides, there are all kinds of things that people are unaware of, even if they "should know" them). ::Since I didn't know I could directly address the IP, I think my actions were reasonable, don't you?

The penalty still seems disproportionate. Obviously, knowing what I know now about IP talk pages (would you mind pointing me to them, by the way?), I'll act differently next time, but my offense here is not one of ill will but rather ignorance. It seems the blocking admin assumed bad faith on my part instead of taking the time to investigate the motives behind my actions. Would this not have been a better approach, all things considered?

I must ask, once more: what is gained by preventing me from making positive contributions to WP for 60 hours?! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have an edit that you desperately need to make, make another unblock request and make that argument. I have nothing to add beyond what I said. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In case I can help with the IP talk page question: you should see (talk) directly after an IP editor's, well, IP, just as you see (talk) directly after registered users' names either in a diff or the article history. Is that visible in the interface you're using? StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, I appreciate the suggestion. As difficult as it may be to believe, I genuinely didn't know this, and if I've ever used it, I likely forgot it was possible.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Revirvlkodlaku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to make one more request to be unblocked. My takeaway from this experience is that a) there's an avenue for communicating with IPs (unregistered users), so going forward, I'll use that instead of relying on edit summaries for communication, and I won't insist that they become registered in order to engage in a discussion. b) I'll be much more careful not to revert as frequently, and I'll make dialogue my priority. At this point, I'm basically a sitting duck, waiting for the penalty time to elapse so I can get back to my usual constructive work on the platform, and prolonging the block does me and the community a disservice. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'd like to make one more request to be unblocked. My takeaway from this experience is that a) there's an avenue for communicating with IPs (unregistered users), so going forward, I'll use that instead of relying on edit summaries for communication, and I won't insist that they become registered in order to engage in a discussion. b) I'll be much more careful not to revert as frequently, and I'll make dialogue my priority. At this point, I'm basically a sitting duck, waiting for the penalty time to elapse so I can get back to my usual constructive work on the platform, and prolonging the block does me and the community a disservice. Thank you. [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]] ([[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#top|talk]]) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'd like to make one more request to be unblocked. My takeaway from this experience is that a) there's an avenue for communicating with IPs (unregistered users), so going forward, I'll use that instead of relying on edit summaries for communication, and I won't insist that they become registered in order to engage in a discussion. b) I'll be much more careful not to revert as frequently, and I'll make dialogue my priority. At this point, I'm basically a sitting duck, waiting for the penalty time to elapse so I can get back to my usual constructive work on the platform, and prolonging the block does me and the community a disservice. Thank you. [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]] ([[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#top|talk]]) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'd like to make one more request to be unblocked. My takeaway from this experience is that a) there's an avenue for communicating with IPs (unregistered users), so going forward, I'll use that instead of relying on edit summaries for communication, and I won't insist that they become registered in order to engage in a discussion. b) I'll be much more careful not to revert as frequently, and I'll make dialogue my priority. At this point, I'm basically a sitting duck, waiting for the penalty time to elapse so I can get back to my usual constructive work on the platform, and prolonging the block does me and the community a disservice. Thank you. [[User:Revirvlkodlaku|Revirvlkodlaku]] ([[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#top|talk]]) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Fisking Rev's requests

This block may be over soon so any unblock request may be moot, but reading both of these over makes me regret that it was such a short block. Rev accuses me of "assum[ing] bad faith on my part instead of taking the time to investigate the motives behind my actions" but at the same time obviates such an investigation by proving beyond any possibility of counterargument that they are an irredeemably toxic and narcissistic editor, the kind we had to run off the project years ago.

Rev's first mistake is the well-worn tactic of so many failed unblock requests: the wall of text. There have been times when admins denied such requests on that basis alone; I have always that was insufficient, but at the same time taking the time to subject oneself to read such requests is often enough to remove all doubt that the block was correct. And so it is here.

Rev's "point-by-point" self-justification is best properly seen for what it is, and isn't, by a point-by-counterpoint response:

• ... hopefully it helps clarify why I felt justified in acting the way I did ...

If you have to add this much qualifying language, you probably already know this isn't going to convince anyone, and it really sounds like you yourself are wavering.

• I reverted this edit, the first by my adversarial editor, for reasons that should be obvious ..."

But they weren't, were they? Maybe with a boatload of reasons for your edit, that should have been obvious to you that it might be helpful to put them in an edit summary as you reverted.

• I didn't add an edit summary, since as an unregistered user performing subpar edits, there's no clear way for me to understand their motivation ...

Not quite. What is clear here is that you had no interest in understanding their motivation.

• ... and from my experience, it is common to revert such edits without providing a rationale.

Not in my experience. I have reverted IPs more times and on more pages than I can count. And almost every single time, barring some unfortunate typo, I have left an explanation. And I am hardly alone in doing so among admins and patrolling users. Where, exactly, did you get the idea that this was standard? Again it seems as if you are fobbing off your personal preferences on the community to avoid responsibility.

• The same user then proceeded to revert back, so they in fact launched the edit war.

"I wasn't edit-warring with them!! They were edit-warring with me!!" OK, it was their tacit invitation to you to step outside, but ... did you have to step outside? The tango cannot be danced alone.

At this point in your editorial tenure it should be absolutely unnecessary to have to explain to you that it does not matter who started an edit war. We have a whole subsection of the edit-warring policy page devoted to how to prevent situations like this—it actually reads like a list of all the things you didn't do here. You will also greatly benefit from closely reading WP:ROWN.

• I reverted again, since I had no reason to think this was a good-faith edit

That's not how AGF works. You have to have a reason not to think the edit was good faith. Other than IP daring to have the cheek to stand up to your idiosyncratic and arbitrary editorial judgement, the sort of thing we have developed years and pages of policy to prevent from playing any role in the project.

• Additionally, since they are not registered, there was no way for me to take up the issue with them directly on the talk page (not that I'm aware of, at least).

It's besides the point to me that you've already had to concede that you were incorrect in this. The more disturbing aspect is that, your later self-serving protestations notwithstanding, you somehow got through 17 years of making 80,000 or so edits to Wikipedia without realizing this. It ... just ... doesn't ... pass ... the ... smell ... test.

But it's also becoming clear that your blinkeredness was hardly limited to this alone.

• I admit that my tone was not convivial ...

Then you should have stopped right there. WP:CIV is more than just pretty words on a page—as you clearly seem to understand here.

Or do you? I am at a loss for what, exactly, was so hostile and uncivil about that edit that you had to remove it from your talk page and use the edit summary to admonish GiantSnowman? Perhaps that "please familiarise yourself" might have been a little sneering, but on the whole it was, perhaps, something you were genuinely unaware of (common theme here, I think), when you should have been, in that discussion. Could it perhaps be that your ego was bruised by the revelation of policy that you were unaware of and didn't want anyone else to see on your talk page?

• At this point, the user switched tack and instead of simply re-adding their preferred 'in July', they decided to delete all mention of the single's release. This seemed inappropriate to me ...

Why, exactly? You previously pointed to the absurdity/apparent contradiction of adding the month of release as unsourced when the entire passage was unsourced. And, what part of "unsourced content can be challenged and removed at any time" do you not understand?

• ... since, as I mentioned more than once, the single is widely attested online, and in my experience, it isn't necessary to reference all releases that can easily be verified.

Your "experience" is as noted above at considerable odds with our sourcing policy. News flash: It's not 2007 anymore. Hasn't been for 17 years, in fact.

• I don't think the primary onus was on me to start a discussion ...

Again, see the links to AVOIDEDITWAR and ROWN. Those responsibilities do not supersede ONUS (which isn't really relevant in this context, anyway; in fact it's rather comical to see it invoked to defend the retention of content an editor believes does not have to be sourced) The primary onus was on you to avoid an edit war, as 331dot correctly points out, and you failed miserably.

• ... since I was merely maintaining a solid version of the page that they were adulterating with subpar edits

Wow. "Adulterating"? Tell us you can't AGF without telling us you can't AGF. No wonder you realized at some level you have to say what you say next)

• ... this isn't 'ownership', by the way, but 'monitoring' ...

You know earlier when I said your claim that as God is your witness, you thought IPs didn't have talk pages didn't pass the smell test? Well, this one does. It smells like your urine all over my jeans after I asked you what the weather was.

• ... an important difference the user seems to have missed in their eagerness to lob cheap shots at me, likely after scouring my talk page.

First, explain (or, rather, don't—it would probably be a waste of effort) how this is anything but evidence of a battleground mentality.

Second, most people would at least consider how their talk pages got to be that way as a factor in an edit warrior's willingness to use it. It's like that oft-repeated line about smelling manure everywhere you go, and where you should look for it first.

• While I acknowledge that I did breach 3RR, I think this is a trivial point...

Trivial? It has been one of Wikipedia's core policies, really (mostly) our only bright-line rule for probably as long as you and I have been editing.

• ...given that I was doing what I consider my responsibility toward the WP platform, to the extent of my capacity."

We do have a very narrowly drawn list of exceptions to 3RR, as I think I mentioned at ANEW. I do not see these kind of edits there.

And, generally, this kind of logic is the sort of thing that disgusts so many people (even those who, like me, have long given up on disgust in favor of trying to be amused) in current politics: the idea that the nobility of one's purpose is sufficient to excuse one's willful and destructive illegal acts. Like:

"While I acknowledge that I did trespass in the Capitol, crap on Nancy Pelosi's desk and build a noose to hang government officials out front, I think this is a trivial point given that I was doing what I consider my responsibility to my country, to the extent of my capacity

This must have no place on Wikipedia.

• I'll finish by pointing out that by blocking me, you are not performing a service to the WP community. I am an experienced, established, consistently engaged, and productive editor who has not only proofread thousands of pages but created over a hundred new ones—clearly I'm an asset to the platform—and while I may be occasionally combative, the harm caused by this attitude is far outweighed by the good I do. Each time you place a block on my account due to my breach of a rule and a minor kerfuffle, you not only deprive me of a valuable, meaningful activity, but you in fact deprive the platform of my positive contributions to it.

As Charles de Gaulle probably didn't say, or wasn't the first to at least, the graveyards are full of indispensable men.

Also, reviewing admins or other readers, note that Rev is making this claim about a 60-hour block.

• Besides the fact the the more this happens, the greater the risk that I will eventually sour on this entire enterprise, seeing the heavy-handedness of its admins

Ooooh, the piéce de resistance of combative unblock requests, the ... Threat to Leave the Project and It Will Be All Your Fault So Everybody Else Will Hate And Shun You Forever!!!

All I can add to what the linked page has to say is that, in my opinion, if you find yourself thinking this way it's a hint and a half from your subconscious that you've, in fact, already left; you just haven't admitted it yet.

In fact, if we look further down HIGHMAINT, we see a remarkably perceptive portait of Rev as (ahem) revealed in this recent discussion (Emphasis mine):

If you have a lack of editorial humility and do not work as part of the editing community as a whole, this is a problem. Worse yet, if you consider yourself Wikipedia's last hope against the ruin brought by lesser editors, you are making a terrible mistake. No one cares to see you crowing about your own alleged credentials or expertise, and you will not receive flowers, parades, or a monument built in your honor. Contributions to Wikipedia border on the anonymous, and no glory is to be found here

... Beware of drawing lines between "good" and "bad" editors based on your own arbitrary and subjective preferences. Wikipedia has a community process for weeding out undesirable editing behavior, and it is not your job to make such a determination on your own

If you keep threatening to quit if you don't get your way, the community will get tired of this and simply let you go so that Wikipedia can get back to work. If you are blocked or subjected to another editing restraint for some reason, this is cause to reflect on what you did wrong, not to declare an early "retirement". The community is forgiving. Everyone needs a wikibreak from time to time. When you need one, take it calmly and quietly; don't "retire" in an intemperate rant only to just stay away for a few days. Take a long one, if you are too frustrated to edit productively. If you feel compelled to remind others how much the wiki would suck even more if you weren't around to fix it, no one is going to take you seriously. This is not a playground. If you threaten to "take your ball and go home", or throw some other form of demanding tantrum, Wikipedia will happily move on without you. There are 10,000 other things to do on the project at any given moment than make you happy. Insincere departures have been a tiresome tactic since the earliest days of wikis. If you have threatened to leave more than once, then please just get on with it.

If you bully your way over "inferior" editors with a panache that befits your assumed "diva" role, you are headed down the wrong path. A constant pattern of snits and sport argumentation does not help build the encyclopedia. Engage in practical, problem-solving discussions, and avoid emotive hissy-fits, "walls of text" (a.k.a. "proof by verbosity", also known as WP:TLDR), and curt dismissals that are non-responsive to other's views. Cultivate the empathy to picture yourself in a conference room face-to-face with the other editor(s), with everyone wanting to get some work done before the day is over.

Don't make a point of rubbing in your edit count, Did you knows, Good articles, Featured articles, "tenure" as an editor, etc. By excessively reiterating your own self-perceived value, you are implicitly denigrating the value of those with other views, which is another form of self-validation. But there are no vested contributors on Wikipedia. Being a longer-term or more productive editor, in general or on a particular page, does not give you more editorial rights

• ... but the reality is that the "punishment" you are administering is grossly disproportionate to the offence—breaking 3RR against an unregistered user who hasn't benefited the platform in any measurable way.

The same editor who was "adulterating" the article? Wow ... more language that we thought we had banished from the public sphere. Perhaps you should just start calling IPs Unterbenutzeren— it would at least be more honest and upfront of you.

OK. Quod era demonstratum. This attitude and behavior by Rev really reminds me of the toxic-user problem we had back in the mid-2010s, when similar long-term editors who displayed real talent in some areas but took that as credit they could borrow against for behavior that drove new editors quickly away were regularly blocked indef and then unblocked, hauled before ArbCom, banned and unbanned because there were other influential users, including some admins, who so valued them as "lovable scamps", that we were for a while just stuck with them, to the community's detriment.

And so it is here. Rev, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, by the way ... he's lying when he says he didn't know IPs have talk pages. Have a nice day. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)