User talk:Emiya1980/Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Emiya1980, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Emiya1980, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Emiya1980! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Are you in some way related to the editor User:Ernio48? I ask because both accounts have made similar editsL for instance adding flags to the info0boxes of German political and military subject articles. What, if any, is the relationship? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer my question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ernio48. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A CU check has come back with the result that you and Ernio48 are unrelated, so my apologies to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Hermann Göring.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I was not aware that I was in a content dispute with anyone. Which disruptive edits are you referring to?Emiya1980 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)User:Emiya1980[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Emiya1980. 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)[reply]

Stop[edit]

99% of the time when an editor is making the same changes across a bunch of articles, a mistaken thought process is involved and there is a lack of consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The pedantic change of "Minister-President of Prussia" to "Minister-President of the Free State of Prussia" is no more useful to our readers than changing "Governor of Virginia" to "Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia" or the "State of Rhode Island" to the "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". You're not being helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken I don't know what you're talking about. That was not me.

[1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken In all candidness, I did not know I made the change to Göring's listing as Minister President of Prussia. For that, I apologize. With that being said, I would like to get others' opinions on the talk page regarding whether to refer to Goring as the "President of the Reichstag" or "President of the German Reichstag".

While one familiar with German politics would know right away what country the office belonged to, someone unfamiliar with the office. Consequently, unless you have any objection, I will go and make my case there and see whether other wikipedians are of the same mind that such a change amounts to nothing more than rampant pedantry. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your case, of course, but first take a look at Charles Schumer, who, while he is listed as a "United States Senator" is not listed as "United States Senate Minority Leader" but simply as "Senate Minority Leader". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both Chris and BMK raise good points in which I agree. I would suggest you give consideration to them; going forward. Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellors of Germany[edit]

Emiya1980, I understand and can accept that "Chancellor of the German Reich" is a more accurate translation of Reichskanzler. However, I do not see the necessity for the adding of "Weimar Republic" beneath. Your reasoning saying that it demonstrates the individual is head of a country and not a mere organisation, in my mind makes no sense. I do not know any organisation called "Germany" - as such it is unnecessary and doesn't help the readers. Furthermore, Weimar Republic is an unofficial name of the country during that period. In addition to this, you have changed the title of the post-war Chancellors from "Chancellor of Germany" (with the addition of "West Germany" beneath to specify which Germany - as there were two at the time, unlike during the Weimar Republic) to Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. I understand this is a very accurate translation of the title from Germany - but I do not see it as necessary as do many fellow editors, because until now it has worked fine with no-one having an issue. Many head of states and governments have long titles which aren't placed in the infobox as it just clutters is up. For example, the French President is shown as "President of France", but when directly translating from french it should be "President of the Republic" or the Spanish Prime Minister should be if directly translated "President of the Government of Spain" - yet in the infobox it is "Prime Minister of Spain". The infobox is not there to fully explain each office the individual has held, but more to give a quick overview of the office held. As such looking at the situation, I would like to reverse the changes to the post-war chancellors but keep the title of "Chancellor of the German Reich" for those serving during the Weimar Republic. Is this acceptable for you? Thank you for going to dialogue and not just an editing war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JWHBerlin (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JWHBerlin Thank you for following up with me. After reading your post, I can tell that you really took the time to think over my message. I really appreciate it.

Per your suggestion, I'm willing to concede the "Weimar Republic" label in exchange for listing the Chancellors of that period as "Chancellors of the German Reich". With that being, I may have some reservations about listing Chancellors of West Germany as "Chancellors of Germany" while listing all politicians in East Germany as "[officials] of the German Democratic Republic". However, I think that is a matter which can be brought up later on the post-war chancellors' discussion pages. Is that a fair compromise? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited José Moñino, 1st Count of Floridablanca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles IV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrei Gromyko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Charles Foster Kane, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Fate/stay night characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

image for the page Alexei Rykov[edit]

Dear User Emiya1980, I would like to replace the image on the page Alexei Rykov which you recently inserted. The problem with this image is that it is impossible to date it, unclear from what source this image is taken and who is the author. Eventually I would like to nominate the page for Feature Article and it is impossible to do if these issues are not fixed. --Armenius vambery (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Archives

Archive 1

Photos of Nazis[edit]

Please gain consensus before over-riding the guidelines on photo sizing. I have no idea where the concerns you note have been raised, and it seems unhelpful for readers to force the size of images to make them smaller (how does this help them to understand the topic, and this seems really unhelpful for vision-impaired readers). If the photograph is propagandistic, a better alternative is to find a more neutral photo. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D The concerns were originally raised by Beyond My Ken. I made changes to pages of other Nazis as part of an informal compromise I reached with him regarding the Hermann Goering article. Our discussion can be seen in the section on Beyond My Ken's talk page entitled "Infobox Pictures for Nazi Officials." Emiya1980(talk) 16:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such a change needs to be supported by a consensus to revise the guidelines/policies around image sizing. It cannot be reached through a talk page conversation between two editors. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Gennady Yanayev.jpg[edit]

File:Gennady Yanayev.jpg is licensed as non-free content which means each use of it needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The file has been repeatedly removed from List of leaders of the Soviet Union because its use in that article doesn't comply with this policy. A freely-licensed or public domain image of Yanayev can be used instead, but a non-free one is going to continue to be removed as long as it doesn't comply with relevant policy. When you're not sure why a file was removed, it's good practice to check the page history for edit sums explaining why. If you find an edit sum and don't understand it, then you can always ask for clarification. Not every image you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same way, and how a file is licensed pretty much determines how it may be used. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally allows non-free images of deceased individuals to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the individual as explained in item 1 of WP:NFCI, but the use of the same file in other articles (such as list articles) is typically not considered a compliant when the file is just used for identification purposes or because the person is mentioned by name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) ‎[reply]

What is the absolute point of shrinking the portraits of Nazis by several pixels?[edit]

Apparently, Wikipedia is glorifying Nazis by showing their middle-aged wrinkly craggy faces in it's full black and white 1940s glory, God forbid the Neo-Nazis click on them to access their full horrifying visage.

The point is that photos in infoboxes are meant to help the reader identify what the subject looks lilke, and not to glorify them by presenting them at overwhelmingly large sizes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have put a notice on your talk page, reminding you to follow WP:BRD by discussing your objections instead of reverting back to your preferred versions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Emiya1980. 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)[reply]

Adolf Hitler article lead[edit]

Some of your recent changes were reverted. Such major sentence wording changes needs to be supported by a consensus. Per WP:BRD that is what needs to be done. If others, agree, so be it. Think about it. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific War infobox[edit]

Hello, I started a discussion of the infobox at Talk:Pacific War#Infobox (March 2019). Could you please join this discussion rather than revert? Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to discuss the rationale for your WP:BOLD changes, and seek consensus. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Princeps senatus does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
- The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 01:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preview – Consolidate – Summarize[edit]

Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
- The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 02:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Roman politician articles[edit]

You are apparently busy moving all sorts of pages of Roman politicians to other names. Please don't do that without first discussing such fundamental moves first. There might very well be no consensus for such unilateral and fundamental change. In many case there even isn't certainty about death or birth dates of the persons involved so the name the way you do is to broad/arbitrary. -- fdewaele, 16 April 2019, 20:26 CET

I agree with user:fdewaele. The first consulship is the standard mean of identification for Roman Republican politicians. Using the elder/the younger is very misleading because there were often more than two people of the same name, and it is not attested in the sources. Using living dates is likewise a problem as these dates are often conjectures. More importantly, academic sources generally use the first consulship (or the most important magistracy) as the best mean of identification. I think you should revert your changes. T8612 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fdwaele T8612 In light of the concerns expressed, I will make no further changes to Roman politicians of the kind mentioned. With that being said, I think we should hold a discussion on such changes in the talk page before reverting them outright. As noted in Wikipedia's "be bold" policy, users are not discouraged from making such unilateral edits if they think it will improve the article's quality as an education tool. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]