User talk:Slywriter

Clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.36 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Slywriter! Thank you for your contributions. I am EdisonLin27 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! EdisonLin27 ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 05:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

weasel words

Your assertion that something is, in your term "weasel words" is your opinion and not a fact. The edit was made with the approval of CommanderWaterford with the only issue being a citation. A citation was given, and now you reverted it, in my assessment, due to your own personal beliefs in the wording. The quote and assertion made in my edit were cited and accurate

@Scheuerman2: Ironically is a weasel word. Plain and simple. Also, the content does not belong in the lede. So if you want it in the lede or you truly think ironically is not a weasel word, take it to the article talk page.

Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. use ~~~~ to sign your posts and new discussions go at the bottom of talk page.

@Slywriter:

"Ironically is a weasel word. Plain and simple." That is your opinion and not a fact, and while you're tossing around judgments based on an article being worded properly, perhaps you yourself should not use terms like "weasel words" to sound more professional. You could have simply removed "ironically", as the statement and cited article were still true and accurate. So whatever, you're not worth arguing with, I'll just say "yessa massa" and let you enjoy your powertrip

P.S. Yes m'lord

scheuerman2 (talk) 14:57:20, 22 February 2021

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Jim Zeigler

So, when my properly sourced citations are deleted, you don't blink an eye. But, when I try to delete properly sourced citations, you add them back immeadiately? Why the unfair double-standard? Belledoll (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Belledoll: I was not following the article prior to your edit, it appeared on a recent edit list and came across as improper.

I will take a look at the article history but those edits were rejected by another editor.

While we are on the topic... Do you work for or otherwise have a relationship with the person named in the article?

Slywriter (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am simply a follower of state politics. Belledoll (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Belledoll: edits are not neutral. You can not add information or extraordinary claims. Only paraphrase what is in the article you are citing. Slywriter (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

President of the United States

Will you PLEASE respect WP:BRD & stop messing with the intro at President of the United States, until we can get a consensus for the changes you're proposing? Leave it as it was, before you raised your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Per policy, BRD is not mandatory and it does not explicitly require not making edits while the discussion is occurring. I have settled more than one debate by making an edit that is acceptable to all. You or another editor is free to revert. I will not edit war it in. Slywriter (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You're being disruptive by trying to force your changes into that article's intro. Please note the 1RR rule that covers that article, thus preventing anyone 'reverting' the exact same edit more then once, within 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur political views

I posted on the Cenk Uygur talk page as well. My edit in the Political Views section doesn't violate any guidelines so there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed. Refer to WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPREMOVE. I'm happy to go into dispute resolution on the topic. Cacash refund (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you be willing to give your opinion on what's happening now on Cenk Uygur's talk page, as well as on wallyfromdilbert's talk page between me and them? They and I are still going on about an issue that started between you and me and I was hoping you'd let us know where you stand. If not, no worries. Cacash refund (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page rather than my talk page for discussions about article content. Cacash refund, the article's talk page allows discussions to be available to all interested editors. You should be responding to the comments there, rather than fragmenting the discussions across multiple talk pages and noticeboards. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Slywriter, I would like to take the time to sincerely apologise for my comments at the School bus talkpage as well as for the edit summary,
My heart was in the right place but I could've and should've been much calmer and a lot less confrontational - I simply felt like I wasn't being listened too and then to be told "Discuss it on the talkpage" was the icing on the cake for me,
Regardless of that I shouldn't of said what I did on the talkpage and again sincerely apologise for my comments,
I hope we can work together in the future and under much better circumstances too,
I wish you all the very best and hope you enjoy editing here :),
Take care, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC),

@Davey2010:No worries. I am generally in favor of BOLD, and IGNOREALLRULES edits, as Talk Pages are tedious affairs of wikilawyering and grammar police.

In this particular case, the talk page discussion is unfortunately neccessary because of the sheer number of other articles effected and the redirect needed to point to the 'wrong' article because the relevant information other articles are looking for is there.

I don't particularly care how the order shakes out in which is Primary and which are Forks, just that everything is edited accordingly so that a bigger mess isn't made.

Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't read the edit summary just saw the talkpage bit and yeah sort of lost it, Absolutely agree the less mess made the better, Anyway happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan Institute of Virology

Hi Slywriter,

The current wiki page of Wuhan Institute of Virology is merely a propaganda of the institute.

As of Feb 2020, serious debates are on-going about the Institute's proper handling of its scientific work, as well as its respect for intellectual properties.

Wikipedia should allow for controversy, and reveal the fact that there is a balanced view about this institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DavidGeorge1977: Wikipedia operates on consensus. The talk page shows no Consensus for this information. Wikipedia does not tolerate those who are here on a mission to right great wrongs and doesn't operate on a deadline. No reputable source is covering this information so it fails numerous Wikipedia policies. You are welcome to go to the articles talk page and discuss with other editors why it should be included. You are not welcome to insist you are right and edit war your point into the article Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Zhengli Shi

Hi Slywriter,

Zhengli Shi is a virologist in Wuhan Institute of Virology. Her lab in Wuhan is the only lab in China capturing bats and studying coronavirus derived from bats.

The 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan is now confirmed to root from bats.

There is a serious debate ongoing in China, about the potential involvement of Zhengli Shi's work in the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

Currently, the wiki page of Zhengli Shi is merely a propaganda page for her personal fame, neglecting the serious debates.

Wikipedia should allow for a balanced view, reflecting the ongoing national controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DavidGeorge1977:Same answer as above. You are welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article but unless you provide sources that Wikipedia already deems reliable or new sourcwes that others editors can check for reliability the information can not be added.

Adding this type of information without using the talk page will be next to impossible as current consensus is this is conspiracy not controversy.

Talk:Shi_Zhengli for further discussion with other editors and you can place sources there for others to review.

Slywriter (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You missed the point. The conspiracy is about the point that the coronavirus has been used as a bioweapon. The controversy is about the source of the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. The controversy is about where the pathogen comes from but not about a weapon. And this scientist, is right in the center of that national debate. This should be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DavidGeorge1977: I understand you but Wikipedia takes BLP very seriously and isn't a breaking news or speculation forum. Take it to the talk page, provide sources and plead your case. If you just try and edit it in, you will be blocked by the admins. They use black and white rules and will not care how valid your argument or cause is, disruptive editing is disruptive. Slywriter (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

True. But tens of thousands have been infected in the Wuhan outbreak, hundreds died. There is a debate with this person in the middle of it. This should be known. Also, she tries to profit from it, using somebody else' invention! This needs to be made known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Move some trucks?

I am trying to move some trucks here. I wonder if I could get you to take a look. I believe I am clear but it's just the same old people and positions. I can't get any "new eyes" to look at it objectively. I would really appreciate it if you would. No reply needed. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstar

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-02-23. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

Hi I see that you reverted my reinstatement of the text on Carl Anderson in the KoC article. This had been in the article previously and was removed by what appears to be a sockpuppet of the editor who was recently TBANned from the page. I'm not understanding why the brief reference to Anderson's background is any less significant than his name, or certainly his title, for the lead? SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Because being a Republican staff has zero to do with him being a Knight. Certainly doesn't belong in the opening sentence of the article especially when there is a link to the person for anyone who cares to learn more about him.

Also, Wikipedia is for the Long haul. I'd argue even further that we shouldn't even have the Grand Knights name in the lede as it is information that will change and is a snapshot of a moment in time rather than having lasting value.

Feel free to revert or bring to talk but like I said here and in edit summary, I don't understand the relevance of his previous role.

Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Specifico: new ping because autocorrect is overrated Slywriter (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: thirds times a charm? Usernames are case sensitive? Slywriter (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not going to edit war on this and re-revert. We constantly update information, for example we say that Donald Trump is president of the US even though he will not be president in 10 years. Your removal is basically validating the removal by a banned editor, which I think is unfortunate. The background in a different line of work is significant because it's unusual for a religious organization and it relates to the varied roles of KoC and its diverse missions. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Not all edits by banned users are bad edits. And I don't see it as unusual line of work. The Knights are a large business and a large religious organization, which are views these days that tend to lean towards the Republican end of the spectrum. I'll bring it to talk, I am not married to leaving it out, just fail to see the relevance. Slywriter (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You may not be aware of the history of that editor in this article, but nearly all of that account's edits were aggressive, promotional and undue. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Slywriter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the gentle first rejection! :) Miikegill (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Miikegill:No problem. it was refreshing to not be dealing with a pure vandal. If it wasn't your own assessment, you can go to edit history and undo my reversion. But add sources, otherwise someone(could be me lol) will still tag it with citations needed. Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a tip

You don't need the rollback right to revert multiple edits in a row. Twinkle does the same thing and can be used by any autoconfirmed user. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@SpicyMilkBoy: Thanks, but unless I am doing something wrong, Twinkle doesn't seem to work on Mobile, even in desktop mode. Unfortunately, i do 99.9% of my editing on mobile. Slywriter (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstar

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-01. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The WikiLoop Battlefield monthly barnstar

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the monthly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the month ending at 2020-03-01. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Machine Girl

can you be more specific about how the Machine Girl page fails notability so i can improve it? i'll do whatever it takes to have it stay up GrantyO2 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@GrantyO2: All sources cited are either blogs or music sites also sharing the music. The group nor it's members have no coverage in Reliable Sources. Wikipedia is not for making a name, it covers artists once they have become established and meet Notability WP:N. While this group may be up and coming, it is unlikely they will meet the bar for Wikipedia at this time. Slywriter (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly counts as being established, considering that this band is already tied for being the biggest act in its genre? We're talking about an artist that is extremely influential at this point. I'm not here to argue over Wikipedia's conditions for inclusion (those standards are being ridiculed by most hobbyists and I won't beat a dead horse), but it's obvious that digital hardcore isn't a genre that will be included on pop music networks mentioned in the inclusion criteria, like being on the radio or on a rich person's label. What methods does Wikipedia employ to counter the pop bias created by 10 out of 12 inclusion criteria being about overall popularity and not notability? Rikataan (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rikataan and GrantyO2:Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope both of you stick around for more than this article.

On the article itself, a list of members and a list of tracks is not an encylopedic entry. Even if the Notability threshold was met, this would not be an acceptable article.

On Notability, all we have are two blogs, which granted appear to be more than fan sites (Brooklyn Vegan and TinyMixTapes), covering the music, nothing about the group or artist themselves that can be sourced to make an article. And the reviews don't quite reach the bar set in WP:Band for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Nor can I find any proof of the extraordinary claim you make here that they are tied for top of their genre. What's the proof? Is there reputable charts somewhere that can be referenced?

Surely if they are incredibly influential then someone would look to write a piece in a trade magazine or music section somewhere.

Finally, you may wish to consider writing this article in WP:Draft where it won't be immediately reverted and has the potential to receive wider feedback and input. Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I don't really mind the revert of this article since I think it's beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to discuss music like a music database would. We have sites like Discogs for that reason, to list album metadata for listeners and vinyl owners. With that in mind, as both a member of the hardcore community, which I've been an insider of for almost a decade now, and as a music hobbyist, it just feels very strange that secondary sources are considered more important than primary sources in determining the importance/notability of music. I think insiders have a much stronger claim to understanding their own scenes, genres, cultures etc. than magazine owners and award show organizers do. Electronic music suffers from this secondary source prioritization because electronic music is abstract and isn't usually meant to be written about. For example, Mount Eerie's "A Crow Looked at Me" is a folk album, it's lyrical, and it's about someone's death. It's very clear that the amount of reviews you'll find online will be much higher for an album like this than for an abstract release of the same popularity. Machine Girl is literally syncopated drums and someone yelling at you; most digital hardcore is. There's really nothing to write about at times.

Machine Girl has been touring North America for two years now, but I have no way of finding out what their ticket sales are. They have several million views on YouTube, their Spotify songs have hundreds of thousands of plays despite two of their albums being recently removed, they're moderately popular on Last.fm, and they consistently chart as one of the top digital hardcore artists on RateYourMusic, and as one of the top hardcore artists.

This is not really meant to be proof that this artist should be on Wikipedia. I spent part of today reading through Wikipedia's guidelines, finding out in detail how submissions and edits work here, what articles should/shouldn't be used for etc. and you're definitely right. This artist doesn't seem to fit what Wikipedia is looking for. If anything, it seems my issue lies with the way Wikipedia itself thinks of music, not this specific article.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, by the way. I appreciate it. Rikataan (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rikataan: So, I spent some time looking at it from the other side and seeing what musicians of the genre have Wikipedia pages. After finding several that should be deleted for sourcing issues, I realized the most notable were already listed in the Digital hardcore article. Comparing the sourcing of those mentioned, its virtually impossible for me to see a path for Machine Girl at this time. If you added them to that article, they would likely be immediately reverted for lack of a page and it doesn't appear that Wikipedia ever created a listicle of digital hardcore groups where they would find more success in being listed.

Democratizing music has its downsides and one is sourcing. :Primary sources aren't explicitly barred. If you can establish notability through other sources, primary sources can be used for non-controversial facts. One of the reasons for preferring secondary sources is that editors aren't allowed to do their own research. We can't connect the dots. Someone else has to.

If you want to pursue a larger conversation about music, notability, and the issues you perceive with the wikipedian way, can always head over to the WP:village pump. Can't guarantee a positive response but the beauty of am encylopedia that anyone can edit is that anyone can also raise an issue to the community. Slywriter (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'm interested. Honestly, I just saw a good opportunity to talk to someone that's involved in the Wikipedia process, and went for it. I think the current standards fit what Wikipedia is trying to do, which is provide information about culture that is relevant to the mainstream. I don't think anyone would want to use Wikipedia to find information about music releases and artists as a whole (as opposed to music personalities and history), and there are other sites that do that job very well in its place. There's IMDB and LetterboxD for films, MyAnimeList for anime, etc. so it's really fine.

I'm more worried, really, that Wikipedia's focus on outsider sources reduces its accuracy. I think it's just a case of outsider media having no way to find reliable information on music genres and music as a whole. You really can't obtain primary sourcing at all, I mean, what do you do? Ask people on forums? Yet really, that's what music databases do (for example, RYM votes on all its genres, and to gain access to voting you just need to be an active member). I think music (and culture, really) is just inherently incompatible with an encyclopedia. Rikataan (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstar

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-09. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear Slywriter,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Slywriter,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Louis Tobacco‎

Thanks for checking that. It was first thing on my list to attempt to verify when I got back. Meters (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Slywriter,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi...

...Just wanted to let you know that I liked (and agreed with) ""MOS is a niche realm of wikipedia dominated by over enthusiastic editors that are at odds with how everyday wikipedians write articles", and that I've quoted it here (at the end of the section). Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please strike the portion of your comment where you refer to me as an "American politically conservative editor." I hope this doesn't require much explanation, but I briefly addressed it on the same noticeboard. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Already done Slywriter (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hilton Bombing

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to go ahead and try clean it up. I expect I will step on quite a few toes.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to escalate this when someone inevitably objects? I'm not certain what the correct avenue is. Kylesenior (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm now taking a look through it and have no idea where to start. There's so much BS here I'd end up cutting most of it out. Kylesenior (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC or DR for the inevitable fighting

As for the article itself, a flow that doesn't center on the conspiracy theories. As in, the fact that the conspiracies exist may be relevant but should likely be a closing section.

I'll take another look at article now. Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kylesenior: On second look, most of the conspiracy section is sourced to the Parliament hearing which is a Primary Source.

The conspiracy is touched on by discussing how its disproven in the follow up section.

So, most likely to provoke outrage but the simplest is wiping out (or perhaps a brief rewrite) of the conspiracy section and the profile of Richard Sealy. Sealy might be notable enough for his own article but certainly too much detail there in an odd spot that doesnt help the reader

Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 U.S. presidential election protection tag

Can you please explain this revert? I don't see why changing a tag from ECP to semi for an article that has had its protection lowered to semi is inappropriate. Why do you believe the ECP tag should remain when the page is no longer ECPed? Also, I don't know what you're insinuating with your questionable vandalism claim comment. You'll have to take that up with the protecting admin, who wrote in the protection log that they protected the page due to vandalism. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see the latest protection adjustment in edit history, so thought you were editing the tag merely in response to editor changing the picture and escalating a content dispute into a behavioral one. Happy to have been wrong. Slywriter (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, alright, thanks for explaining. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: ping since not likely you are actively staring at page awaiting a response

Adrianna muise

Were the edits vandalism/factual errors, or was I being a fool and edit-warring? Steve M (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Steve M: It's vandalism. Check the admin boards about tik tok. Huge amount of notable people/mayor vandalism being encouraged on social media. I believe one admin said its averaging 1 in 150 edits. I'm sure some admin will get around and tell you not to worry about EW but figured I'd save you some stress and just piggyback since no source on Edit Slywriter (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, Adrianna muise is back with an Ip Steve M (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. I rolled back the vandal's edits not taking into account that there the signature bot edited in between. Sloppy. I should have double-checked. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

OTT

I can't say I have no sympathy with this; but really, it does not belong on an article talk page, whose content should be about the article, not about its vandals. I invite you to self-revert. -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood and will do. Slywriter (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Emphasis in posts

As you have discovered, posting in capital letters is the equivalent of SHOUTING!. If you wish to add emphasis to certain words in a post, do it by putting them in italics. Best, Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitol

My edits are seldom "just c/e" – that's why the summaries are clickable. Anyway ...

Please elucidate (surely several ≠ all). --Oblio4 (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oblio4 if you just leave "c/e", others do not see your reasoning behind editorial decisions. You removed several wikilinks with unclear rationale of why. The copyedit of his quote about Revelation and Beast may have made sense to you, but another editor already challenged such changes hence the simpler "sic" placed. High School football, I thought linked to a specific article on HS football but looking again, I see you were just removing redundancy since it's not a standalone article. Slywriter (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I browsed the article's revision history and talk page [recte diff pls]. --Oblio4 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1016109006 Slywriter (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

sic [recte damifino] --Oblio4 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear SW,

Thanks for pointing out the need for sources. It helped a lot in adding to sourcing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Do you have hebrew language skills? If so, can you help transcribe certain hebrew texts? Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear SW,

Thanks for your using your technical expertise. I really appreciate it!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Slywriter,

Just a few reminders if you are going to be tagging pages for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD/etc.). First, please state what you are doing in an accurate edit summary. Secondly, you need to post a notice on the talk page of the page creator every single time. Sometimes there are problems that the page creator can fix and, maybe more importantly, if they don't receive a talk page notice, they may not even know that their page creations have been deleted or why. I recommend using Twinkle because once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", the program will automatically post these notices for you every time you tag a page for deletion.

Please adopt these customary practices if you intend to tag any more pages for deletion. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Liz, Thanks for catching the no notification, normally I do drop a template. (FYI- Template says 'should' not 'must' which maybe should be changed).

Also, for future reference, is there an issue with the edit summary, thought it was brief but clear. Anyway, talk page of primary article has further insight into other editors concerns that prompted me CSDing. Have a good day Slywriter (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)\

Rasha Kelej

Hi sir good morning

You have removed my edits on Rasha Kelj's page because they contain lack of neutrality..... Can I restore the edits and delete everything that contains amplification, please..... Thank you very much Yellowjoe (talk 09:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC))

@Yellowjoe:As was suggested by another editor, you should use Talk:Rasha Kelej to suggest edits and provide sources so other editors can review whether the edit is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Additionally, uploading a photo you did not take and/or posses the rights for as "own work" is a violation of wikipedia policies. Wikipedia had a number of WP:FAIRUSE exceptions but the photo must be properly attributed to the copyright owner and meet several other criteria. Slywriter (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir good morning

Can i ask you question

I have revised my edits And I chose the appropriate ones. Can I add it to the article immediately? Or is there something I should do in advance to review my edits??? where i can show my edits to see if they are suitable or not?? Yellowjoe (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I suggest you place your edit on the talk page so others can discuss but there is nothing stopping you from editing the article and trying again. Anything promotional or improperly sourced may be reverted. Slywriter (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright sir thank you Im going to make the right editing to this article and remove any thing wrong Yellowjoe (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

people should learn what is gain of functions before making comments on gain of function

Gain of function experiments must be done in live infectious viruses. The Journal of Virology work was performed in pseudoviruses and has absolutely nothing to do with gain of function. Even the Nature Medicine paper doesn't meet NIH's definition of gain of function.

Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic ANI

Hi there, there is currently an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion ongoing about User:Clemper regarding Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic. If you wanted to add your two cents there, go ahead. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)