User talk:GuardianH

DYK for Bork tapes
—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello GalliumBot, These picture have been for more that 15 years maybe. Few were added recently. Should I create a new heading with Education, Lectures and Visits in Pictures. I will appreciate guidance. Thanks Surance (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

UVA Lede
Hey there. Just wanted to open up a discussion section to avoid removing good work without instead fixing it. I disagree that each of the notes needs to be cited, as they are each discussed and cited later in the article. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @SerAntoniDeMiloni The problem is that the notes use Wikipedia articles as a source, which is prohibited per WP:CIRCULAR. GuardianH (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @GuardianH. Notes are not meant to be sources, but instead meant to provide elaborations. As in the article, if someone wants an elaboration on ie 'literary arts', the note provides them an explanation and the page to see. Not sure there's any better way to do this. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @SerAntoniDeMiloni If I might comment on this, it also abridges WP:NOR. Like an academic paper, it makes a value judgement based on the importance of a subject (i.e., see, for example, [topic]). That "for example" is ascribing weight to a subject in relation without a source – who decides what to see for an example? This is quite subtle original research, but original research nonetheless and due to be removed. GuardianH (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @GuardianH. I'm still not sure we're on the same page, though. Everything on Wikipedia has been written by editors who have individual skews and have taken thousands of points of information and prioritised those which, based on their judgement, are more important. I'd rather prompt that the notes in the lede are in lieu of 'See x page' that can be found in articles pointing readers to the main page. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @SerAntoniDeMiloni I don't think any of those are at issue. Editors also make some of the same mistakes collectively, but that doesn't justify the mistakes, of course. If it is original research, it should be removed — and in this case it is OR. GuardianH (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Most picture were there for many years. Should I post them under new heading and reduce the number. Would appreciate guidance. Thanks. Surance (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. Good job! 38.111.224.51 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lawrence Collins, Baron Collins of Mapesbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LLM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, GuardianH. Thank you for your work on Phil Calabrese. User:Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Influences
I see that on 24th August 2022 you edited the influences parameter for Steven Pinker. I don't suppose they bothered to tell you, but as part of a massive purge involving at least 3000 articles the influences and influenced parameters were removed by PrimeBot in the last few days. If you have any thoughts about this there is a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced_--_abuse_of_power Athel cb (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Clarence Thomas
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Clarence Thomas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20GuardianH&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1180473334 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1180473334%7CClarence%20Thomas%5D%5D Ask for help])

British biographies
Hello again. I've come from Helena Hamerow where you've done some more "condensing". Why have you removed the school from Charles Wesley?? I'll just copy and paste what I've said to you in the past:

Actually, you've made a fair few edits to British biographies that appear to be based of incorrect assumptions. For example, it is not "condensing" to turn All Souls College, Oxford, Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford, St John's College, Oxford, and Brasenose College, Oxford into University of Oxford. This is like condensing University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Santa Cruz into one University of California. Oxford and Cambridge are weird universities: the colleges are (for the most part) independent institutions; and there are many illogical facets, such as "students" of Christ Church, Oxford actually being the academics, or Master of Arts degrees not being real degrees.

In the UK, we separate education (childhood school; university is not considered a "school") from alma mater which is any/all universities that someone attended (they don't need to have graduated with a degree from them).

Professor has a different meaning in the UK. Someone with the profession of a university teacher is known as an academic or lecturer. A professor is the most senior type of academic, and a title of distinction, it is not an occupation description. The UK and US (mostly) share a language but there are differences. So please educate yourself before making any more such changes. I'm happy to point you in the right direction, or just have a look at British biographies and other Wiki articles. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As above, I'm happy to point you in the right direction. This was a good edit for example. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with all this. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Groton page overflowing from potentially connected contributor
Hi GuardianH, what do you think about what an unregistered editor is doing on the Groton page? It seems like he or she is a connected contributor. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't speak directly regarding the situation. But when it comes to WP:COI problems, the first thing is to warn the user using a template like Template:Uw-coi. Any edits that are WP:PROMOTION of course must be removed, and there is also the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. GuardianH (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up that mess! DMacks (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Dodgers/Braves infobox photo
Not sure I know what the point is of making it smaller, since what dictates width in that infobox is the 26 innings of line score and at least from my perspective, making it smaller just increases whitespace and makes it harder to read. Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that making the image a huge size makes it more visible, but it actually makes the article harder to read, rather than easier. A fine balance between good chunks of paragraph and portrait is best — with an image of that size, the paragraphs are far too squished. GuardianH (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it makes the paragraphs any less squished because the line score (the inning-by-inning) is what is making the infobox so wide and doing the squishing. Perhaps it depends on what skin you use? Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your considerable efforts to assure balance in the C.T. article. Thanks also for including the Jackson quote. Though I have respected him immensely, I never thought of him, one way or the other, as being possessed with a sense of humor. ____

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, GuardianH. Thank you for your work on Michael Stokes Paulsen. User:Maliner, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Maliner (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleon H. Foust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

potential vandalism
This might count as vandalism. Let me know what you think about the dozens of higher ed edits about "American English" made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jacona Seems bizarre to me. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That's ok. I think the editor is just adding those templates to distinguish/notify editors to use American English as opposed to British English; the changes aren't visible to readers. I think this would be normal copyediting. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 1 November 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notification of third opinion (3O) request
I listed Talk:Clarence_Thomas at Third_opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga)  19:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hi GuardianH, we know each other from higher-ed stuff. You really know your way around Wikipedia. I am no newcomer, myself, with more than 10,000 edits in German and English, but I do have questions from time to time. Mainly it has to do with conflict resolution, the quest for better referencing, puff reduction and so on. Could you take me on as a mentee for these areas? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Melchior2006, I'm unfortunately not the best mentor for such issues, and I fear that I would mislead you in some areas — there are editors much more versed in discussion and conflict resolution than myself. Most of my work is usually a passion project, and as such I try to best avoid any direct conflict. However, I'm always open for the questions, and I'm always willing to collab with you on article! With the amount of stuff on the site, it seems to me that the best teacher is experience; it certainly was for me. GuardianH (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you mean. If I have questions, I will write you on an ad hoc basis. Is that ok? And as you say, the best way is learning by doing, so if we can collab on some articles, all the better! --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, no worries. GuardianH (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Notification of third opinion (3O) request
I listed Talk:Clarence_Thomas at Third_opinion. The editor who responded to the initial listing was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga)  12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Demers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Above the Law.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

John Hart Ely
I have added his second book to his biography with a short summary cited to his book. You are reverting a cited addition to the article. If you did not see the references cited to the book itself, then you should restore the section. HenryRoan (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Summary of books required citations to the book being summarized. This is not NOR. The citations to the book are already there. Start Talk page if needed. HenryRoan (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is giving the summary? Who is synthesizing information to present it to the reader? When you give a summary, you are condensing information and making editorial decisions what to include, what not to include, and what to write. The only source you provided is the primary source, so these decisions are made by you, which makes it WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are the ones who write the summaries on a daily basis for textbooks, novels, plays, and films. MOS states the policy as: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." HenryRoan (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What you just cited comes from Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Ely is nonfiction. You need to cite your sources without WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you believe that Wikipedia policy for summaries for fiction are different than summaries for nonfiction at Wikipedia, then that sounds incorrect. As I stated above, summaries for textbooks, novels, plays and films (fiction and nonfiction) do not require citations ("does not need to be sourced" to secondary sources). HenryRoan (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Harvard, Radcliffe, and A.B. (not B.A.)
At Harvard (& historically, Radcliffe), Bachelor's degrees are called "A.B", not "B.A.". I've reverted a few of your recent changes but it would save other editors a lot of trouble if you could undo the rest yourself. Special-T (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Universities do that for ceremonial purposes. They name it as an "A.B." for the sake of using the Latin artium baccalaureus, and due to the Latin usage a lot of the degree names are in a reverse order. Universities in general do not get to dictate policy on Wikipedia, and reflecting this ceremonial usage is WP:JARGON. To take an example, Harvard also still labels their M.S. as S.M., M.A. as A.M., and their B.S. as S.B. We generally don't reflect this for the sake of readability. B.A. as Bachelor of Arts is just fine. GuardianH (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about maintaining your talk page
Hi GuardianH, I wanted to ask how you deal with unfounded or erroneous comments on your talk page. I noticed that you deleted one recently (I agreed completely with that decision). Do you feel obliged to archive stuff from your talk page? Then there is the "junk mail" one gets from time to time; hardly anyone could argue for archiving that, or what do you say? Thx. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You're allowed a great deal of free reign over your talk page. I think there's some editors out there who have never even archived their talk page before; my understanding is that you aren't compelled to do so. It's more of a voluntary cleanup/organization task from time to time. As for comments, I try to respond to them even if they are misguided, so as to see if there is a common ground. GuardianH (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey GuardianH, I stumbled upon your user page a short while ago — forgive me if it sounds weird, but I think all the stuff you’ve done is just incredible. I was also an Asian-American high schooler from Massachusetts just a short while ago (played a bit of jazz at NEC and All States here too, might be doxxing myself idk lol, maybe I know you?) and I’ve always really liked history (not as rigorous as you, I think) but most of my edits are just me carrying over DOY stuff from other language DOY pages (like Japanese or Chinese) because I don’t feel like I have enough time in college to pore over academic texts. I’d love to hear what your reading/writing process is for Wikipedia as a presumably busy student so I can do more (right now I feel more like I’m filling holes as I see them instead of spending time researching topics and making new pages about them).

P.S. Also, if you end up attending Harvard or MIT I’d love to meet up sometime 😎 Marcustcii (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Marcustcii Thank you for your kind words. I always wanted to be a historian when I was a kid, and the field I wanted to specialize in was Byzantine history and become a medievalist based off of the stuff I read from Herrin, Goffart, Ostrogorsky, Kazhdan, and other authors of the Oxford tradition. I think that's largely what has informed my writing the most; my personal bias is that the writing style then was so much more elegant that it is now. So I try to replicate their stylistic approach in summary as much as possible, and I think after you get at it for a long time it enters your subconscious. Same goes for research — you develop an eye and taste for content.
 * I've shifted a little now. I think it would be very difficult to sustain a lifestyle as a medievalist in the academic field now, which is a terrible shame; my personal sympathies to the field remain, although I've transitioned towards constitutional law and all the great figures which have molded that discipline — Scalia, Hand, and the like. It's so similar to medieval history, in a way. I'm laboring away on Henry Friendly (a personal hero of mine) right now. I don't know if looking at it would get my reading/writing process (I'm a terribly messy thinker as evidenced by the log), but, if I were to guess, that would be the page to look at.
 * I think all the stuff you’ve done is just incredible – I think you are giving me too much credit! I get into a terrible cycle with articles: after some inspiration all I can do for a few days is work on them, become disillusioned, and the writing is actually quite a disappointment. I end up abandoning a lot altogether, leaving their corpses behind (Malone, White, Rand, and countless other casualties). I'd be willing to speak about my process if you're still interested, but I think there really are much better writers than myself on here that could offer greater insight. GuardianH (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing Bots out of my watchlist
Hi GuardianH! I have a little question: Can I set parameters somewhere to exclude bot changes from my watchlist? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Melchior2006 I believe so. I think if you go to Preferences > Watchlist (tab) > Changes shown. GuardianH (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * gotcha! That was easy. Thanks for your help. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frederick Banting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Cambrai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your "thanks," and for all you do!
Hi GuardianH, what an impressive userpage you've got- you must have a very broad reading list with the topic interests you display and have made contributions to.

I want to thank you not only for your "thanks" on my recent edits (boy howdy, removing that Stossel LISTSPAM was actually quite a feat on the mobile app, which I learned doesn't scroll when you "drag-highlight," lol. I was in too deep to give up, though), but for all the work you do here. As I just posted on ElKevbo's page, the one positive for me in bumping into the disruptive editing from Summerdays1 has been uncovering contributors like yourselves, who are protecting the encyclopedia from sometimes-subtle BOOSTERISM in areas with higher-than-usual "drive-by" edits. You are awesome, and your tireless work is appreciated.

I am a habitual copyeditor (I find it so relaxing, which I recognize might be weird lol) so if you ever come across articles which need text clean-up or just review, and don't have the time or inclination yourself, feel free to tag me in to have a look! Thanks again and happy editing :-D ~Chelsea aka Chiselinccc (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. Face-smile.svg Copyeditors like you are what keeps articles running for years. GuardianH (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Andrew G. McBride
Hello,

Can you explain the reason for this edit. You failed to provide an edit comment the last two times you made this change, so I'm not sure the reason. Adding hobbies doesn't seem like a forbidden thing here? In my opinion, I don't think it's trivia, but helping to define the person's character and interests (a la Bill Clinton playing a saxophone). --Engineerchange (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Engineerchange If you didn't see, the statement is unsourced and WP:NOR. The 'avid bike' comment comes from a blog comment made by Daniel Troy (a friend of his) on www.dignitymemorial.com, which itself likely may not even be a WP:RS. So it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. GuardianH (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I previously added in the in-line cite to clarify that I believe it is sourced: "Andrew was a brilliant litigator, a devoted gym rat and an avid bicyclist, having cycled along the coast of California and from Washington D.C. to Florida." is part of the obituary above that comment. Maybe saying "many cross-country trips" is the uncitable part? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - I think so. The source as a whole is actually somewhat questionable, which is why I'm also reticent as to why we might include his minor hobbies. Obituaries often do this a lot — i.e., 'he was a brilliant x', 'a loving father and x', 'lover of shakespeare', and 'utterly devoted to scholarship, x, y, etc.' We don't usually reflect these labels for obvious reasons, and I think it would be best to include information from obituaries like that only when it is relevant to what the subject is known for (which in this case, would not really be for being an avid biker). GuardianH (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean obituaries (at least in the last 30-50 years) are almost always written by family (as far as I know), so I think it's unfair to say all obituaries are bad given in many cases for obscure politicians in the 19th century (more of my focus of late) that can be all we have to start guessing at dates of birth/death, careers, family, etc. I think the best alternative here would be to remove some of the fluff like "avid" and "many", and state the likely factual statements without much color. Thoughts? (also, I very much appreciate this discussion!) --Engineerchange (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the best alternative here would be to remove some of the fluff like "avid" and "many", and state the likely factual statements without much color — I agree! This definitely works best. GuardianH (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carla Anderson Hills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B.A.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Abusive sock account at WP:ANI
I spotted an abusive sock account. So I started a discussion about the abusive account at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Economic repression in the Soviet Union for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economic repression in the Soviet Union, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Economic repression in the Soviet Union (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleanth Brooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BLitt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael E. Hansen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LLM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you like me to semi-protect your page
The person behind you is obviously using proxies, there is no range that I can block. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller Yes, please. Thanks. GuardianH (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Doug Weller  talk 14:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 - Edit Summaries Revisited
Hello GuardianH. I noticed you deleted (reverted) my request on your talk page that you use edit summaries to explain your reasoning for edits, or to provide a description of what the edits change, because summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edits will be misunderstood. Of course, like your edits to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison your summaries could have been brief. First, while you may freely remove comments from your talk page, archiving is preferred. Second, the addition of a notable partner and the type of law firm to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison do not appear to be Gnome activities which include “improving punctuation, fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, creating redirects, adding categories, repairing broken links, and many other …repetitive tasks”. This is further evidenced by your not ticking the "This is a minor edit" box before saving each edit, using such edit designation being inappropriate under minor edit requirements. Saying your inaction was just some Gnome from you, doesn’t make it so. Such is governed by WikiGnome not personal preference. Rather than deleting a comment that you don’t like, I suggest you revisit the use of edit summaries and consider leaving them when Gnome and minor edit requirements don’t apply. Regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I do many repetitive but still important tasks (WP:GNOME), and that was one of them — adding onto a list and a word onto the lede. The gnome tasks you chose above is few and unrepresentative, and you took the examples for Wikignomes as being strictly exclusive even though the passage says differently ([Gnomes do] many other …repetitive tasks). This is among many repetitive tasks. The reason for adding onto a list is obvious, as is adding a subject descriptor, so an edit summary was forewent as per WP:FIES. GuardianH (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean forwent. See . EEng 06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed? GuardianH (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My god, you're right! What a strange word! I am awarding you the English Wikipedia Award of Lexicographic Merit, First Class, with Oak Leaves and Bits of Rubies. You pay only postage and handling. EEng 07:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Or should it be lexicographical?
 * Thank you, EEng. GuardianH (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) North Korean with medals.jpg

Request for inputs
Greetings @GuardianH

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles, and also facilitate some discussions. Came across your user profile from related changes to MOS:LEGAL since you may have made edits to Law related articles. Many WP users are not aware of MOS:LEGAL.

I am looking requesting inputs at WT:MOS/LEGAL to begin one more round of discussion to update Manual of Style/Legal if the topic would interest you. Thanks &#32;Bookku   (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Wesleyan cuts
Thx for trying to clean up th excessive people-pix on the Wesleyan page; I don't think your edit should have been reverted. I seem to remember that any alumni galleries are superfluous, so I was just wondering: Which criteria were you using in your (laudable) attempt at reduction? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:CATALOG and WP:DUE come to mind. Things don't usually stretch to infinity, so it would be reasonable to trim material down on this basis. GuardianH (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael T. Cahill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page J.D..

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Moving NJIT significant award winners, e.g. Turing, from opening paragraphs
On several occasions a short list of awards won by NJIT alumni have been either removed or relocated from the opening paragraphs (3 in all) in the NJIT page. I am perplexed by this as a review of other stem-focused schools shows that most have similar listings in their opening paragraphs. So, it appears that if the school is famous enough, such lists are OK but for lesser-known schools it's a no-no. Among its alumni, NJIT counts a Turing Award winner, Judea Pearl, a congressional medal of Honor winner - one of the monuments men - and National Medal of Technology and Innovation recipient. Call me biased but I think it's pretty clear that a double-standard is in place and has been for quite a while. For example, check out MIT or Stanford or Harvard or Carnegie Mellon or NYU or University of Pennsylvania or University of Texas at Austin or University of California, at: Los Angeles, San Diago, Santa Barbara, etc. etc. (my hand is getting tired.) SO, what gives??? Rrsimone (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[ reply]


 * "Well, that article has X, therefore that justifies Y on this article" is a very old argument that has rarely been accepted, not to mention that it is a textbook fallacy. As for ledes on university articles, they need to follow the stringent rules outlined by the dominant consensus on descriptions of university reputations on ledes. Alumni sections need to follow WP:DUE, and ledes as a whole need to be compliant with MOS:LEDE. The former outlines the due weight that is necessary for inclusion (i.e., like having a sufficiently weighted alumni section in the body), and the latter outlines that ledes are reflections of an article's body content. So for the NJIT material, it lacked the body weight and cut straight to imposing an alumni lede — this is probably one of the most common issues out there regarding WP:BOOSTER. I've detailed this ad nauseam on the very pages you've cited. GuardianH (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
I see you've been reminded before. Not doing so hinders the cooperation and consensus-building required of editors per WP:CON. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Any obvious edits like copyediting and other WP:GNOME activities can forego an edit summary per WP:EDITCON, which might be what you're referencing. GuardianH (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - I'm having difficulty finding your answer to be in good faith. --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh - when I said "obvious" I was citing WP:EDITCON's All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious); the term is not my own (e.g., it was not meant to come across like "any obvious edits..."). When I said "which might be what you're referencing" I was writing about whether or not you were referencing WP:EDITCON or a different part of WP:CON. GuardianH (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When it's dozen's of edits, it's not obvious what you're doing, so you should include some edit summaries. That's why I'm having a difficult time seeing your answer as one made in good faith. --Hipal (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reasons are uncontroversial article expansions, and I demonstrated that simply with, e.g., →Early life and education, →Biography, →Articles, etc. as edit summaries. If an edit might seem controversial (e.g., a removal of material that might be against WP:NPOV), there were more specific edit-sums (i.e., ). This is a quite common practice for lots of editors writing in perfectly good-standing, and is not in bad-faith. GuardianH (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, I actually learned the →[section] practice from Wehwalt when he was working on Matthew Quay and other articles during 2022, and I've used it when I've been writing articles ever since. GuardianH (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you're editing in bad faith, or anything like that.
 * I appreciate the section titles in your edit summaries, and the relatively clean individual edits. Thank you for those.
 * Have you looked at the edits as a whole? You'll see that's it not obvious what you've done once you put in section headings or move content around. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that even there, the noticeable trends are: (1) an updated infobox, (2) an expansion and reorganization of Early life and education, and (3) a reformatting of Articles. GuardianH (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And if you had edit summaries to that effect, I wouldn't have reached out to you. --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But the thing is I did have those edit summaries. An editsum like →Early life and education shows an expansion of that section, as does →Articles, etc. I think the misunderstanding here is that you are wondering about what an edit changed, and not the reason for an edit. When you said it not obvious what you've done once you put in section headings or move content around, your statement actually found the reasoning already: to put in section headings and move content around for organization. GuardianH (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. When there's a default edit summary of a section heading, it only means that the edit took place in that section.
 * Again, I'm saying that your edits as a whole are not obvious (and so need edit summaries per EDITCON and WP:ES), and you're not communicating to other editors as you should be doing. --Hipal (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm saying that your edits as a whole are not obvious (and so need edit summaries per EDITCON and WP:ES) You say that as a whole I'm not putting edit summaries, but, as a whole, I am. I just demonstrated — and we both agree — that →[subject] is an editsum. I've expounded on the obviousness standard point below.


 * We're going to go around a circle wondering what is and what is not the obvious reason for an edit. So to clarify I'll use one example from a recent edit: here even though there was no edit sum, the reason for the edit is obvious (linkage), therefore an edit summary can be omitted per WP:EDITCON. I'm confused as to what you're objection over obviousness is when, yes, even edits that add material with the editsum →[subject] can be perfectly reasonable and are perfectly acceptable. And if you say 'well, no, because that edit you linked is not adding a lot of material or content', take a look at this example where I put →‎Biography in the edit sum when adding material — the reason to add this material (his dissertation) is obviously to provide more due content material. That in it of itself is a reason, and, to repeat myself, an obvious one even without a more detailed editsum.
 * I'm having trouble wording this message in a way that is easily digestible because I'm essentially tasked with proving a negative. GuardianH (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me try to be clearer:
 * When I ran across your edits, your large number of rapid edits with a lack of descriptive edit summaries was an immediate red flag. It looks like what WP:UPE and WP:NOTHERE editors do to hide edits.
 * I looked at your edits as a whole, and could not make out what you'd been doing. (I demonstrated this with the diff above.)
 * I looked over each edit individually, and didn't find anything wrong other than the lack of edit summaries.
 * I came here and saw that others had notified you about your lack of edit summaries, and started this discussion.
 * Does that clear up anything? --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. The main issue is that you are citing a bunch of policies, implying a violation, then after I've responded you contradict what you said previously, so I'm having issue with addressing your point because you're making multiple unrelated implications.
 * (1) You began this thread by implying a violation of WP:CON without specifying what, then I demonstrated that they were well within consensus . (2) You implied that I was not editing in good-faith , even though there is nothing I've said to suggest that. (3) You backtracked on your implication of bad-faith by saying you never said anything like that, which contradicts your previous two messages, then thanked me [?] for the edits . (4) You say that after looking at the edits, it is not obvious what you've done once you put in section headings or move content around. But if you actually go to the link , there is three innocuous, obvious updates, and I told you that you can clearly distinguish them even in the diff . (5) You said that if I had edit summaries, they then would have been clear. But editsums have nothing to do with the diff, which just shows what changes were made regardless of what the summaries are. And I did have editsums anyway. (6) You then implied that I'm not using edit summaries at all, which is completely untrue.
 * If you personally didn't think they were obvious, I don't see why you didn't just go to the article talk page and ask me what the changes were, so I could have then demonstrated the clear changes. Instead, you implied consensus violations, bad-faith, the impression of being paid and WP:NOTHERE, and that I'm not using edit sums at all. And on top of all that, it just adds to the confusion when you titled your thread "Please use edit summaries". GuardianH (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can't drop the misrepresentations, this is going nowhere. --Hipal (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What have I said is a misrepresentation? You are not being clear at all by making a series of implications. GuardianH (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The main issue...
 * (2) You implied...
 * (3) You backtracked...
 * (6) You then...
 * Instead, you implied... --Hipal (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (2) "I'm having difficulty finding your answer to be in good faith". "When it's dozen's of edits, it's not obvious what you're doing, so you should include some edit summaries. That's why I'm having a difficult time seeing your answer as one made in good faith".
 * (3) "I'm not saying that you're editing in bad faith, or anything like that." ?
 * (6) "your edits as a whole are not obvious (and so need edit summaries per EDITCON and WP:ES)." "Please use edit summaries." GuardianH (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to ignore what I consider misrepresentations, and address those quotes? --Hipal (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you see how each quote is an implication and if it wasn't the message you wanted to communicate that you should have worded them more appropriately? I have no problem with you clarifying further what you meant by those messages. It's just that they misrepresented what I said and casted aspersions. GuardianH (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I could have worded them better (and am happy to make clarifications for each). You could have asked for clarification.
 * I don't understand, It's just that they misrepresented what I said.... None of the quotes you identified appear to be me misrepresenting you in any way. --Hipal (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for a clarification because they casted aspersions. It would be odd to ask you to write your aspersions more clearly. The onus is on the writer if your message is worded contrary to how you intended it to be.
 * When you keep saying "please add edit summaries" you are making an implication that I'm not putting edit summaries. But if you look at the article, I make extensive use of →[section], which in article expansion is a common and acceptable substitute to say "I am expanding [X] with [Y] source" (I explained this further in my second fn), and this can be clearly seen if you look at the diff. Edits with other sums like→[subject] (i.e., →cite, →References) or with edits that add/remove small bits of material can be seen obviously to be copyedits or something other that is innocuous or organizational. WP:EDITCON lays out that edits be explained unless the reason for them is obvious, like here. GuardianH (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you're going to continue to misrepresent me, as well as assume bad faith. As I said at the very start, doing so hinders the cooperation and consensus-building required of editors per WP:CON. --Hipal (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You literally said "I'm having difficulty finding your answer to be in good faith" and "When it's dozen's of edits, it's not obvious what you're doing, so you should include some edit summaries. That's why I'm having a difficult time seeing your answer as one made in good faith". Your implication is that I'm somehow editing in bad-faith. Isn't that clear from the message? GuardianH (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)