User talk:Thinker78/Archives/2017

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Thinker78. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Ninney (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Anmccaff, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I forgot to sign.Thinker78 (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Lang template problem

No one responded to your Help Desk question. Do you want to try again?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Disappointed with the help page of Wikipedia. Disappointed also with the IRC chat, there was no one there to help. But thankfully I resolved my issue. Thinker78 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Thinker78 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rfc stuff

At the Charles, Prince of Wales Rfc, maybe I should remove the tag line about anyone adding more options. The options there, pretty much cover the spectrum of what was discussed before the Rfc. If at the end of the Rfc, there's a close preference for multiple options? we can always work a solution among those options. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay:Per WP:POLL "every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll". Although it is not a policy or guideline that seems reasonable, and reading the WP:POLL explanatory supplement is advisable now that you are using a poll. I think it is good to bear in mind that the poll is just an instrument of consensus, and further option titles probably should not be disregarded. Thinker78 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, if anybody wants to add further options, it's their choice. I've no objections to anyone commenting on what each other posts. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, more options have been added at the Rfc. You may want to add the article to your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

You edited (took down actually) my last post. =( It was 100% accurate. I got the info FROM Wikipedia. I’m dyslexic. It is difficult for my to use all the characters neeed to....cite?....I think. They appear backwards to me. You obviously know what I am trying to do, please feel free to simply do that part for me. I will put up the info again soon. Thank you. Wjp1134 (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wjp1134: Don't be discouraged from editing, but try learning how to do it properly. Sometimes the additions you make will be challenged or removed, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly, then you can discuss or dispute the challenge or removal of your content using various methods, but you know that in order to be a good encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to have certain standards. Those standards are in various policies and guidelines. I removed the content you added because it wasn't backed by a reliable source, and Wikipedia cannot be a source to itself. One of those policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability) state, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", and "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources". In addition, to properly use talk pages, you can read Help:Talk pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thinker78. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox updates

Hello. Please do not clutter the infoboxes as you did in this edit. It makes it more difficult for users (especially new users) to edit the infobox. Keep it expanded as it was before. Thanks, Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I have no idea what happened there, the only thing I remember doing was deleting the 8 in 2018 and replacing it with a 7. Can you tell me what happened so I can be more careful in the future if it is something I did? Thinker78 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You clearly removed all of the spacing. Just look at your diff and the one before/after it... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove the spacing, it was a glitch. I tried changing the year again and the only thing I did was delete the 8 and put a 7, I checked the history and it happened again. It is a glitch. I will report it. Thinker78 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless somehow you're able to prove that it's a glitch, I'm not really buying it. I also see you're rearranging fields in the infobox too (this could be the problem)... either a code is being left out or something else is going on. Please leave the fields where they are per the template. Also, he will be coach of the 2018 Gators football team, so we list the year as 2018, not 2017. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

When you get a glitch yourself and someone else accuse you of lying, even though you spend hours each day contributing to Wikipedia, then you will learn to be more thoughtful with your words. I think that the proof that there is a glitch is very easy, I think you can replicate the glitch yourself -at least the glitch replicated when I did the second edit. Change the "8" in "2018–future" for a "7" in an edit using the visual editor and save it. Then view history and compare the diff. You will see that for some reason it will show like if you messed up the spacing instead of just changing the "8". And regarding the year Mullen becomes coach, you are putting unsourced information up, you need to put a citation to back up your claims. I was about to put the citation of 2017 but started instead fixing the spacing, when I tried to save the changes someone else had edited, so I was not able to. Thinker78 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Ok, I proved it was a glitch. Go to the Dan Mullen article talk page for details. I think someone owes me an apology for not giving me the benefit of the doubt and writing such an ugly edit summary. Thinker78 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues with editing

Please see WP:MOS

Hello. It was my intention to post an in-depth explanation of my issues with your editing. This would have been far more helpful to you than what I shall write now. Basically, the following template sums it up:

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please just take some time to read—fully—the MoS before you make stylistic/linguistic edits. Not having done so means that someone has to go through and change them all. I will do so at some point; I have been ill for about the last three weeks, so have not had any proper time to spare for this sort of thing. Let me know if there is anything with which you are struggling. The main one for you:

• en rule/dash – Mac is alt+hyphen; windows is alt+0150
• em rule/dash—Mac is alt+shift+hyphen; windows is alt+0151.

There are other issues I have found, but I do not have the energy to finish collecting a list of diffs. If you pay attention to these things, I see no reason why you could not be a good editor one day. –Sb2001 22:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you have been ill, I wish you a speedy recovery. I do try my best to follow the MOS. I consult it when I am in doubt about something or if I don't know something. You could have used {{subst:Uw-mos1|article}}. Maybe there are things that didn't fit the mentioned criteria, so I didn't check the MOS because I thought there were no issues about what I was doing. But I would appreciate if at least you provide me with a link to see one such issue so I can take a look at it. There are many policies and guidelines in Wikipedia, and I doubt that editors go to read them all before contributing. Thinker78 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it could you take a look at my recent noms at TAFI Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Would appreciate no matter what !vote as no one is attending the TAFI nom page anymore to give input. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I went to take a look and there was plenty of activity in your nominations, and you got approved a couple even. Probably contacting members worked. Let me know if you need something else. Thinker78 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pieve Vergonte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novarese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

+44 (band) copyedit

Hi. Are you finished copyediting +44 (band)? Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 20:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I finished. Forgot to change template. Thinker78 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Thinker78 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Australia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please join the discussion on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D: Hi. I'm completely confused why you are accusing me of edit warring. According to WP:EDITWAR, "An edit war... occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". Notice the word "repeatedly". It also says, "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Per WP:0RR, "Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by ArbCom, under administrator enforcement, or by the community... These restrictions are generally called 1RR (one-revert rule) or 0RR (zero-revert rule)." I checked a few times the edit history of the page to find if I made other reverts and I found none. In fact, this single revert is just the second edit I have made in the page in a year. I didn't see any notice in the page about being in revert restriction, and my understanding is that the page generally has a notice notifying all editors about the restriction.

I don't know what or if I am getting something wrong here but I'm thinking that you were trying to talk to another editor, you mistakenly thought I repeatedly reverted, this is a false positive of a bot or you don't remember what WP:EDITWAR says. In addition, per WP:INVOLVED, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved... Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." I read the talk page per your indication and I found that you are involved in the disputed edit, voicing your opinion about the stats and showing partiality towards certain viewpoint. Please submit evidence that my recent editing history at Australia shows that I'm edit warring or retract your warning. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There's been edit warring in this high profile article, with a talk page discussion being started to discuss the matter. Then you arrive and revert. That's edit warring, and really unhelpful conduct given that other editors are trying to settle things. As the standard wording in the template notes, there's no entitlement to having three reverts. Please take part in the talk page discussion. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D I had no idea that there was edit warring nor that there was a discussion about it. You are making me confused because you are saying that I was edit warring just because I made a single revert but WP:EDITWAR clearly says, "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring", and that is what I assumed edit warring was, repeatedly reverting, and I did not repeatedly restore/revert my preferred version. Please explain why then you are accusing me of edit warring if I only made a single revert and did not reverted repeatedly as the policy states. And how exactly my edit history alone showed that I was involved in edit warring. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Need a second administrator opinion to clarify what constitutes edit warring after one administrator issued me a warning for edit warring for making a single revert (see my talk page). 05:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Thinker78 (talk)

Usual caveats apply: I'm just some guy on the internet, YMMV, admins have no special authority with regards to policy etc. Unless you are operating one of the other accounts involved (which I don't believe you are), then you yourself are not technically edit warring. However, that doesn't mean that you are not involved in an edit war; you would have had to look at the page history in order to revert the edit on Australia, and in doing so, you must have seen that there had been a degree of back-and-forth about the issue already. In reverting again, you're essentially serving as a proxy for the other editors involved; this doesn't do anything to help solve the problem. It's far better to engage in a discussion rather than dive in head-first and start fighting it out on the article itself.

Instead of arguing the minutiae of whether or not what you did was actually edit warring (my opinion is that it wasn't, but that it was certainly unhelpful, and a warning about the consequences of continuing was entirely mandated), a better option would be to head over to Talk:Australia and explain why you feel the information should be included. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's a third opinion. You may or may not have known that there was edit warring going on. If you did, then joining the edit war was, as Yunshui says, "essentially serving as a proxy for the other editors involved", and effectively joining in the edit war. It may be that one or both of Yunshui and Nick-D know of evidence that I don't know of to think that you were knowingly joining in an edit war. If they do, then certainly giving you a stern warning was justified, though I don't think posting the standard edit-warring template was a good way to do that, as you weren't yourself edit warring. If, on the other hand, they don't have such evidence that you were knowingly joining in, then I think they should have assumed good faith and given you the benefit of the doubt. In that case a much better way to handle the situation would have been a friendly note informing you that there had been problems with the editing on that article, asking you not to revert again, and inviting you to take part in discussion.

On a different matter, your mention of WP:INVOLVED above is a misunderstanding. Nick-D was not acting as an administrator: he was just giving you a warning about the edit-warring policy, which any editor could have done, not just an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding reversion of Chickakoo's edits

Please feel free to double check my numbers by going to Stats Can Table 102-0540 Deaths, by cause, Chapter XX: External causes of morbidity and mortality (V01 to Y89), age group and sex, Canada http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1020540&tabMode=dataTable&p1=1&p2=-1&srchLan=-1&pattern=death to crunch the numbers yourself before removing my additions to the Deaths by firearms table. If you can't repeat the math from that data table, THEN revert my edit. I went back to my edits that I made yesterday to update the source which I was finally able to track down from the CBC article I cited http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf but you had removed my edit already. I will leave the 2011 numbers because I have run out of time for today, but am confused because the box at the top of the article says they needed help with out of date info. --Chickakoo (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Edited (added title) Thinker78 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Chickakoo I replied in the concerned article's talk page. Let's continue the conversation regarding the reverts over there. And yes, help is always needed. If I reverted your edits doesn't mean you didn't help or that your help is not appreciated. Thinker78 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78Okay, no problem. I understand the need to verify numbers. I moved my instructions on how to replicate calculations to the talk page under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#Canada--Chickakoo (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Pedro Perebal

Hello, Thinker78,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Pedro Perebal should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Perebal .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

...nuff said! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Cuban presidents

Howdy. You still didn't number the bio articles, to match with List of Presidents of Cuba, therefore I went & did the task. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for correcting the enumeration although it is controversial not to enumerate provisional or interim presidents because they were after all presidents. Thinker78 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judicial Watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judicial Watch. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your MOS edit

Hiya. Regarding your change of "in particular" to "usually", these are not varying degrees of the same thing, if you know what I mean. The former directs to do the thing with a specific focus, while your change makes it seem occasionally okay. Wondering what inspired the change. Reply on my talkpage or the MOS one, please. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anatolia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julius Evola

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julius Evola. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Gaza border protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Gaza border protests. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colt AR-15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colt AR-15. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. >>> Participate in the June elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Al-Awamiyah

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al-Awamiyah. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Pedro Perebal

I have restored Pedro Perebal to User:Thinker78/Pedro Perebal. It will be safe from deletion there as long as it doesn't become promotional or violate copyright (which it doesn't). I hope that's helpful! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roseanne Barr

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roseanne Barr. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Laird

Hello, Thinker78. You have new messages at WP:HD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Environmental inequality in Europe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Environmental inequality in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julius Evola

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julius Evola. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political views of American academics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political views of American academics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey there! This is for how nice you were on my page to such a newbie. Good on ya! Rexlikescheese (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Rexlikescheese Thanks for the barnstar! Thinker78 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and fringe discretionary sanctions

Please don't make edits like that again. You know that we consider Creationism fringe and that the relevant scientific disciplines say it didn't exist when they pay attention to it. Your edit there suggested that wasn't true and could be seen as disruptive. Doug Weller talk 04:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller I hereby officially request that you reconsider the restriction of "not making edits like that again". I was trying to rephrase to more accurately reflect the source and the context per WP:V. The source did not state that modern science says that the ark did not exist but it is raising issue with the supernatural parts of the story and may be implying that the author believes that the ark did not exist. Thinker78 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he doesn't. I'm just as sure I said please. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 GOCE Drive bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Thinker78 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

TOTD help request

Dear Thinker78,

I noticed you are signed up as a participant at WT:TOTD.

As you know, in addition to being displayed on thousands of user pages, the Tip of the day is also presented on some of the highest-traffic pages of the Wikipedia community, including the main help page, and the Community portal.

One thing that the Tip of the day department needs on an ongoing basis is maintenance of its tips, in the form of proofreading.

One way you could help with that is to display the tip of the day at the bottom of your talk page, where you would regularly see it. Then, if you notice any problems, you could dip in and fix them.

We have a special tip template that displays the tip 2 days in advance (in order to precede all time zones), to assist in checking tips before they go "live". That template has a secondary function as well: it provides a place to post department notices, when needed.

Notice the reference at the top of this message. That is a nifty little trick, to hang anything desired at the bottom of a talk page. I've used it to display the template just mentioned. If you place that at the top of your talk page somewhere, the daily tip will always be displayed below the last message on the page.

Just a bonus tip, from your friendly neighborhood Tip of the day department. ;)    — The Transhumanist   16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Transhumanist I posted the template at the top of my talk page as indicated but the tip content is also showing at the top of my talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice. I'm glad you've adopted the WP:TOTD. The trick for hanging it at the bottom of the page is to put it inside "ref" tags, like this: <ref>{{Totd-day-after-next}}</ref>, which turns it into a footnote. ;) I've taken the liberty, and fixed that for you. Cheers, and thank you for helping out with the proofreading.    — The Transhumanist   00:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolving Talk:Honeywell#15-AUG-2018

I saw you closed the request there, but I recently finished reviewing some content that Spintendo had pointed out as problematic. Do you think you could help me repair it? I know you might not be totally familiar with the situation, but I'd appreciate it if you could take a look since Spintendo has been unresponsive.

The content in question is confined to the Business units section of the article. The affected subsections were as follows: Aerospace, Honeywell UOP, Honeywell Process Solutions, Electronic Materials, Resins & Chemicals, and Specialty Materials. I trimmed and rewrote the content. Here's a link to the diff. Should I reopen the request there, or could you handle if from here? I'd appreciate any help I can get on the matter.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

FacultiesIntact Best if you open a thread in the talk page of the affected article to seek discussion and consensus, that way more editors can weigh in. If you open a request and is controversial it can be declined. I didn't find the other request controversial so I made the requested changes. But in this case if it was me I would decline your request. I will tell you why when you decide to open the thread. Thinker78 (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I understand your rationale for closing the request; my comment only pertains to point 4 of Spintendo's last response, and my subsequent response (namely point 3). He found some content that appeared to come directly from Honeywell websites, so I worked to find all the offending instances and rewrite them (noted above). I know that this request is somewhat outside the scope of the original one, but I reached out to you as I saw you'd reviewed the original edit request. Is this new request something you think you could help me with, or do you think it'd be best to submit an entirely new edit request with this new proposal?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For cleaning up Dhvani Desai. Keep contributing. :) Nizil (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nizil Shah Thanks for the neat barnstar! Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

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 recently 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 any 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.

- MrX 🖋 16:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 drive bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Thinker78 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Korean animation

Hi! Thanks for flagging the copyright problems at History of Korean animation; I'm sorry it's taken so long to resolve (I've actually looked at it several times, but not until today worked out the full story). The copyvio content was added to Korean animation in December last year, and then some of it transferred (in good faith) to the other page. At Korean animation, I saw no alternative to reverting to the last clean revision; that means that a lot of your edits have been undone/removed – I'm sorry about that. Do you want to check and see if any of them could be restored to the page? If so, I'll hold off on the revision deletion until you've had a chance to do so. Do we need to put a note somewhere to remind copy-editors to always check for copyvio before starting work? I do hate to see substantial good-faith work thrown out because of copyvio problems. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Thanks for letting me know. I guess a note about not copyving would be ok. I have copied the parts of the article that I think can be saved and which don't include the problematic ref, so feel free to do your magic. Thinker78 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments on John from Idegon's talk page

Hello. I opened my watchlist and this happened to be on top. I'd like to say that what he said to you is not acceptable, and although he's unlikely to receive any punishment or effect from his actions, they were wrong. Vermont (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Vermont I have seen editors blocked for violating the 3rr although I won't for the moment take further action. The editor doesn't seem to like getting feedback but he surely gives a lot of feedback and warnings to other editors. For this last reason I will keep an eye on the editor. Thinker78 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As much sense as that would make, trying to 'keep an eye' on an experienced editor who you don't get along with well is likely to lead to you being reported for harassment, and possible receiving an IBAN. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser Thanks very much for your advice. I don't know the editor and this has been the first time I come into contact with them. I read WP:HARASS and I intend to comply with it. Per WP:HOUND, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". I want to keep an eye on them not to harass them but actually to check that they is not unfairly discouraging other editors from editing in Wikipedia. If they is an experienced editor I don't understand why he violated the 3rr and why would they tell me to buzz off if they repeatedly revert users edits and use warnings on others. In synthesis, I am just part of the checks and balances of Wikipedia and I accept and understand that checks can be done on me as well. If you have other policies in mind that I could read I would appreciate it. Thinker78 (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon is an experienced editor, who has made over 83,000 edits. I don't believe you are planning to violate policy, but I would be carful, as I have been threatened with an IBAN based on completely baseless accusations of trolling and following someone [1][2][3]. Given that you have already admitted to wanting to 'keep an eye' on John, this may be used against you at ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The guy that threatened you was out of order. John has a lot of edits. It would be a real shame if their edits are unconstructive. I will exercise care, but I emphasize that my intention is to investigate possible abuse of warning templates and reversions. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Question for admin

Hi. An experienced editor, John from Idegon (talk), apparently has violated WP:CIVILITY due to comments they made in edit summaries directed at me. This editor apparently took offense when I posted a 3rr warning because he had violated the 3rr, telling me to report them or buzz off. I asked why would they want me to report and they wrote a very rude edit summary threatening me with ANI. Also, given their response to my warning posting, their rudeness and that they apparently warn other editors in their talk pages (why make an issue when I posted a warning if the editor post warnings on others?), I was wondering if there is some undue discouragement of other editors by John from Idegon and was willing to keep an eye on the editor but I was advised that could put me in trouble. I have to make note that apparently the editor is suffering from health issues, according to their talk page. Seeking advice on how to proceed. Thinker78 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Templating experienced editors, except in very unusual circumstances, is often considered rude. I don't know what the circumstances behind it are but I seriously doubt it justified taking that approach before first dropping a friendly line on the article talk page over the issue. I do agree that John was a bit sharp in his reply, however there is a longstanding consensus within the community that editors have the right to ask other specific editors not to post on their talk page. My advice is to drop the stick and find an article in need of improvement. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem Thanks for your reply. You said you don't know the circumstances behind it but I don't understand why because I wrote the information with the related diffs. I templated the editor because he violated the 3rr rule, a violation which is a big no no as far as I know. I saw the 3rr violation and simply proceeded to put the template on the offending editor's talk page. I am unaware of a protocol that the number of edits of the editor needs to be checked before using the template and I didn't know they were experienced, which in my opinion magnifies the offense. Please let me know of related guidelines or policies that can illustrate the issue. I found two competing essays: Don't template the regulars and Template the regulars. Thinker78 (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Re:Guatemala#Marriage and childbearing

Hi @Thinker78: Just about penultimate sentence; it's quite acceptable to say "Childbirth frequently takes place in the home"; it's better style and conveys a little more the plight of the situation in such a context. Muchas veces is a little wooden put straight over. Gherkinmad (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Gherkinmad I changed it because it resembled too much the original source. --Thinker78 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: I understand but there isn't a different way of wording it without the section sounding too plainly as if trying to solicit the reader's emotions. Gherkinmad (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gherkinmad I respectfully disagree. --Thinker78 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: "Childbirth is frequently at home." ? Gherkinmad (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gherkinmad You don't need to ping me in my own talk page, it is completely unnecessary given that a user gets a notification of any message posted in their talk page :D. If you want to press the issue you are welcomed to bring the issue in the talk page of the Guatemala article or edit if you want. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Edited 02:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking you if this wording would be acceptable to you, not why you didn't think of it yourself. Gherkinmad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Gherkinmad A synonymous of "frequently" would be better. --Thinker78 (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thinker78. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)