User talk:ADifferentMan

Welcome!

Hello, ADifferentMan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol
 * Anti-vandalism tools

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome!

S0091 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

How do you correctly reference a source?

ADifferentMan (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ADifferentMan
 * When using visual editor here is the toolbar
 * [[File:VisualEditor_toolbar-en.png]]
 * click the cite button
 * [[File:VisualEditor_-_Cite_Pulldown.png]]
 * Then insert the URL and auto-generate the reference
 * [[File:VisualEditor_Citoid_Automatic_tab.png]]
 * Does this work? Please let me know.
 * Thanks and best regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then insert the URL and auto-generate the reference
 * [[File:VisualEditor_Citoid_Automatic_tab.png]]
 * Does this work? Please let me know.
 * Thanks and best regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this work? Please let me know.
 * Thanks and best regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and best regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and best regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:Referencing for beginners for a somewhat more general introduction to citing your sources (including without the Visual editor). Huon (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Did adding the citation work?
Please let me know. I gave some tips above, but didn't hear back -- not sure whether you were able to use it. Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thanks Gryllida and Huon for your tips! Unfortunately I didn't save the page I wanted to add a citation for, but I will definitely use this in the future. Thanks again ADifferentMan (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of terrorist incidents in 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aksu. 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) 07:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert - gender and sexuality
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicolas Marie Thérèse Jolyclerc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Maur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human rights in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre into People's Liberation Army at the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Liberation Army at the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Ping.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks. 27.65.26.100 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify which part you think needs improvement? ADifferentMan (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP spammed this message to 30 or so user talk pages. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for letting me know. ADifferentMan (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"Troops (village)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troops_(village)&redirect=no Troops (village)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Main apna atma bechna chahta hun mujhe iske badle mein famous hona 2409:4072:582:DABD:0:0:2031:40AC (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shanakdakhete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing Mr McMurdock MP’s wiki page
Dear Sir,

The updates made to Mr McMurdock MP’s page have been done so under professional legal advice.

Please revert to my last edit.

Further, constructive, informative and accurate updates to Mr McMurdock MP’s page will be put forward following input directly from him.

Kind regards. 5.64.200.38 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing End the Fed wiki page
You removed my correction of "surveys" to "one survey" on the grounds that it was not 'constructive'. This is I doubt you read the source cited in support of that sentence. I did. And I investigated the footnotes, finding that the (single) survey in question was circulated by the author of the paper. It was an informal online poll circulated to what appear to be hand-picked colleagues. Its sample size was neither large nor its methodology scientific.

I fail to see how correcting a factual error by adding relevant context gleaned from the footnoted source is not 'constructive'. You suggested that I familiarize myself with the Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest that you do the same. 76.91.17.61 (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Please take some time to re-read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. From the page history, I believe has already made it clear that your edits break these policies. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thenightaway (talk · contribs) made that claim many edits ago and at the time it was mostly wrong, but partially correct. His comment spurred me to read the guidelines and make the necessary edits. That didn't stop him from running roughshod over the remainder of my edits, and all of my edits ever since. And it didn't stop you from invoking his old and generally incorrect comments as a justification for making unrelated edits based on 'constructiveness,' which seems unrelated to the other two objections. Surely you should read the edits to which he is referring before using his comments to somehow bolster your separate claim of 'constructiveness.'
 * Let's take the example of your latest edit: you put in "surveys", an incorrect generalization based apparently on a previously validated "reliable" source, after I took it out and replaced it with "survey." You also seem to have removed information about the nature of the survey contained in the "reliable" source. What about reading the source and making the text of the wiki conform strictly (without generalization and synthesis) to what it says "original research?" I did not find the source. I did not validate the source. I merely read the source and paid attention to its footnotes. ADDING MORE INFORMATION HERE AFTER RE-READING THE PAPER: Blinder referred in the paper to surveys that may or may not have been conducted in or prior to the year 2000. So those surveys cannot possibly be part of the "reception" to a book released in 2009. The only contemporaneous survey he mentions (and surprisingly includes in his footnotes) is what he refers to as "a petition against the Paul Bill". Which can hardly be used to show a consensus when it comes to "reception" of the book or its ideas. Clearly that is relating not to the book, but rather to Paul's separate legislation.

In light of this, I may have been incorrect to change "surveys" to "survey." Instead references to things unrelated to the book's reception should be omitted or relocated to an article on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, or debates on those topics.
 * If you think I'm doing synthesis, check out my last substantial edit from July 18 and let me know which parts are not from "reliable" sources, and which parts are synthesis. Why, for example, is an episode of The Daily Show a "reliable" source, but Time Magazine is not? Why is a published review by notable person Steve Forbes less relevant than the comments of television presenter Jon Stewart? Why, in Thenightaway's eyes, is Stewart the only person (apart from current and former Fed employees) whose reaction is valid? Is that any way to follow the neutral point of view guideline? Is that an accurate depiction of the reaction to this book? 76.91.17.61 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)