User talk:Gawaon

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Foreign Secretary&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:LiveJasmin&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES
"Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently." Holy (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that's not meant to apply in cases where one number includes a fractional part and the other doesn't. These are, due to their different natures, not really comparable. Gawaon (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Israel–Hamas war&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Holodomor
Considering the recently undone change. The point of adding the comment about Lemkin on top is to show that there are three things researchers disagree upon: - it is not a genocide - it is a genocide, but it targeted only a group of farmers and Ukrainian population was mainly farmers - it is a genocide, and it targeted Ukrainian nation as a whole, not just the farmers.

To me it's unclear, why should the first two points should be discussed in the top and the third point be presented separately in the body text, instead of belonging together. Krispe13 (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To be more specific: the difference, between the second and third claim is that they differ not only by the scope of the target group, but also on the understanding of what Holodomor actually was in its essence: one focuses on collectivisation - directly and clearly targeting farmers, the other - on targeting the nation in terms of their religion/church, language/national intellectual elite, forcefully changing the self-identification of the group etc. Krispe13 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Eventually, depending on the point of view - if Holodmor is a genocide of the farmers in the Soviet Union (not only Ukrainian), one would consider the famine in Kazakhstan a "Kazakh Holodomor" (or a part of Holodomor), while those who see Holodomor as a a genocide of Ukrainian nation, would then refer to the famine in Kazakhstan by its own unique name - Aşarşılıq, particularly considering that both had similarity as well as differences. Thus, would appreciate if you could help reflect that in the title or would agree that I would make an adjustment myself (maybe with better phrasing this time). Krispe13 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the text into the "Genocide question" section where it fits better. Keep in mind that the lead (the text before the first section header) is only for summaries of the article body (the rest of the text). Adding something there that's not also (in more detail) explained in the body is always wrong. If you disagree (but that's just a very basic and very general policy, not a matter of debate), let's continue the discussion on Talk:Holodomor, not here. Gawaon (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Igbo people and cannibalism
Hello Gawaon, I am writing to ask about the inclusion of the cannibalism link on the Igbo people page. While I understand that it's just a link and readers are not obligated to click on it, its presence implies relevance and will attract attention. Your repeated addition of this link suggests you consider it crucial information about the Igbo people. Could you please explain why you believe this is essential? Part of why I am asking is that the trope of igbos being cannibals was used as a justification for hatred on social media in the last Nigerian elections. Also i acknowledge your point that cannibalism has been documented globally, including in Europe. However, articles about other ethnic groups, such as white people, white Americans, Cantonese people, Qizilbash, and other African groups like Yoruba, Ijaw people, and Zulu people, do not include links or mentions of cannibalism, even though there are historical instances in these cultures. This raises the question of why it is particularly important to include it in the Igbo article. Could you clarify your reasoning? Thank you. Bernadine okoro (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, there will no doubt always be gaps in Wikipedia's coverage, but hopefully these gaps will become smaller over time, so that's not a good argument for making even more gaps. Some articles don't mention cannibalism as a historical custom when, no doubt, they could. Others already do, like those about the Attacotti in Britain, the Aztecs in Mesoamerica, and the Zappo Zap and Azande people in Central Africa. The article on Māori people also mentions it, if in a somewhat dismissive way. And so on. If you see gaps where such historically relevant customs could be mentioned, but aren't, I suggest you fill them. I do the same when I have the time. Wikipedia is not censored and readers should have the chance to learn about historical customs and practices, even if we today consider them unacceptable.
 * That said, while I think that former occurrences of cannibalism among Igbo are sufficiently well documented (including by oral history) to deserve mention, how best to do so if of course open to debate. I realize that the link in the "See also" section could give readers (especially those that don't follow) it the impression that cannibalism is still practised today, which would of course be nonsense. It's a historical practice, so a short mention somewhere in the "History" section may be better to reduce the risk of confusion. Maybe one or two sentences in the "Traditional society" section, with a "further" link to the relevant Cannibalism in Africa section for more information. What would you think of that? Gawaon (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I still do not understand why the article needs the link, but I think the link is enough for the page. And I honestly don't believe that the page requires an in-depth description, especially considering that the Igbo people have multiple different facts that are important information about them that are not part of the article cannibalism is definitely, not a key important fact that needs to be included in the article so the article is okay as is. Bernadine okoro (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, then let's stick with the link. Gawaon (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:FCSB&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Alexander the Great&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Breach of 1R restriction.
Diff 1 Diff 2

Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Also please read WP:HEADLINES. Selfstudier (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Selfstudier (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Just a heads up, I don't actually really care if you want to tweak the wording here. However, my strong position remains that we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. See Village pump (policy)‎. GiantSnowman 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All right. I hadn't done any tweaking BTW, but I think that using DATERET to argue against retaining the currently used date style is obviously against the spirit of what's very clearly the intent. Gawaon (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Third-party ANI visit
Good luck with this one— There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Remsense 诉  15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Auto archive
I removed the auto archive period on the Taiping Rebellion talk page because I thought 180 days was too short, not too long. The previous two talk page messages had not been addressed yet and were archived. Did you realize that the previous auto archive period was 180 days? Alexysun (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, but frankly, any discussion that hasn't seen updates for 3 months is stale and unlikely to ever be resolved, so it can as well be archived. Though personally, I like keeping at least the newest discussion around no matter its age, so the talk page won't appear totally unused. Accordingly, I now have set  on that page – somebody had set it to 0 for some reason. Gawaon (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gawaon Okay, I agree. Thank you. Alexysun (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep up the great work
i really appreciate your neutrality, keep up the good work man, i love them Alexanderia3524 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks a lot 😊 Gawaon (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Road
Hello, I removed “virtually” since it wasn’t present in the plants section. Firekong1 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have now looked into the cited source, and it says "an unnamed cataclysm has obliterated all trappings of civilization and society from the face of the earth, and virtually all life". I have now tried to find a wording that stays fairly close to that – no distinction between plants and animals is made, but it's clear that society was destroyed too and most people seem to be dead, so one cannot just speak about "non-human life". Gawaon (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I was not the one who added it prior. I just wanted to remove confusion from the sentence. Firekong1 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I hadn't added it either. Thanks for your rewording. I had to add one more word (not all life on Earth went extinct, obviously) and think it should be fine now. Gawaon (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome. But can we agree on a proper rewording? I still feel the sentence needs a bit more. Firekong1 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think is missing? Gawaon (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the article doesn’t go in depth, can we remove “virtually” or “most”? Life on earth in the story isn’t even the focus anyway. Firekong1 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But, uh, the man and his son are part of life on Earth, right? And there are other people still alive. Not sure about animals, but plants too. If you have further tweaks to suggest, I'd suggest we discuss them here first, but obviously we cannot spread falsehoods about the story. Gawaon (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m referring to non-human life such as animals, none are mentioned in the book except in the context of the story, and even then it is regarding the extinction of non human life on earth. Firekong1 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Life on Earth" includes the human variety too, of course. Also at least a dog is mentioned as still alive, and once the man thinks about cows, supposing them to be extinct, but also realizing that he doesn't know for sure. We can't claim things that aren't clearly stated in the story itself, of course. Anyway, I can live with the wording as it currently stands. Gawaon (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don’t think it’s sufficient enough, the book mentioned that life is extinct except for humanity. Firekong1 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it? I don't really think so. But anyway, the wording you have found now seems fine. Thank you. Gawaon (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so. But I wanted to reach an agreement. You’re welcome. Firekong1 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Manual of Style/Capital letters. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''The proposed language was discussed, more editors supported with stronger arguments, and crucially, after it was implemented it gained implicit consensus per WP:EDITCON by not being touched for 1.5 years. I suggest you disengage from the edit war.'' Pinchme123 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * The same, uh, could be said about you? EDITCON by itself it not an argument, otherwise Wikipedia pages could never be improved. Gawaon (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thankfully in this case this isn't just an example of implicit consensus only. Discussion took place over proposed language and after a week of near-unanimous agreement (with only one comment of concern and not outright objection), the consensus-derived language was inserted. When others came to later object, their arguments were weak and the implemented language wasn't challenged via further editing. This is in actuality a rather strong case of consensus-building, which has now only been challenged a year and a half later. Hardly convincing of a lack of consensus. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that no consensus was reached? But anyway, let's take it to the relevant talk page, here is not the place for it. Gawaon (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)