User talk:James Ker-Lindsay

Welcome!
Hello, James Ker-Lindsay, 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:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

May I ask?
you are here since a few days and I am an user since 2004 (that's doest not mean I am better but that I am more experienced). How can you write on my own talk page, for your FIRST comment ever on an User page (!), with a template only known by experienced users, that my contributions are unconstructive? especially on an article where I am the main editor? Something wrong in your edit? Please reply only on your own page.--Arorae (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No offence, but your edit was unconstructive. There are tons of similar Olympics-related articles and they all use "Nation" instead of "Team" in their medal tables. Please start a discussion in the talk page if you believe that we should change "Nation" to "Team" in all Olympic medal tables. Thanks. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN
Hi. Please don't make edits to "fix" redirects by piping to the target article, as you did at Afghanistan. This is contrary to the Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTBROKEN. ― Tartan357  Talk 06:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Tartan, eliminating unnecessary redirects which have no potential for creating separate articles in the future won't be considered a violation of that policy. It's merely a personal editing style implemented by some of the editors (WP:WikiGnome). As stated by the policy, there are also some good reasons to bypass the redirects, eliminating excessive redirects (such as Islamic instead of Islamic ), which not only wastes resources but also slows down the server when their numbers are accumulated, is one of them. Eliminating redirects which serve no purpose will not only improve the overall efficiency of the system but also help other editors better assess whether any redirects to a particular article can be converted to separate articles in the future. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, the guideline is quite clear that you should not be making these edits:


 * There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace  with.


 * There are many reasons why this is Wikipedia policy, not just the potential for future article creation. Another is that "introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form". If you disagree, you can seek to have the guideline changed at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, but until that happens you are required to abide by it. I would agree with you on the  point if Islam was the link target, but that link is supposed to point to Islamic state. Piping from   to   and from   to   are clear violations, and persisting will result in a report for disruptive editing. ―  Tartan357  Talk 22:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's clearly your way of interpreting the policy, which I don't agree. To me, those source codes for tables or charts are much more difficult to read than plain text codes. If an editor cannot handle these codes, they can use VisualEditor to edit the articles instead of complaining about the readability of the source codes. It's merely my personal editing style, and you are the first and only editor so far which says that my editing style has created a readability problem for other editors. I have seen too many Wikipedia editors wasting their time trying to convince/enforce other editors to follow their editing styles or their rules, I am not going to waste my time debating about these things. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's policy. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to follow it. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judaism in North America. 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) 06:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Regional power
What exactly made you believe that you cite a 2011 link that includes only a passing mention, for disputing consensus which has been already mentioned by another editor on talk page from 2018  (Talk:Regional_power/Archive_5) to remove Egypt?

Same disruptive editing could be also observed with your restoration of Mexico against consensus at Talk:Regional power/Archive 6.

If you can't use talk page or argue to support your edits then don't start an edit war by throwing misleading edit summaries. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Abhishek, Wikipedia is not a place for arguments. The sourced article was written by Robert Kappel and published by Intereconomics with sources written by some well known scholars. If you read the article, you would know the author has studied the potential regional powers on a case-by-case basis, weighing each of them against some detailed and well specified criteria. Both Mexico and Egypt have scored highly in almost every aspect and according to the article summary, both countries have met the criteria for regional power status. As I said in my edit summary, there are some second-tier regional powers included in our list which are worth discussing, but not for Mexico and Egypt. If Mexico and Egypt don't make the list, then we might as well delete all countries on that list, except the BRIC nations.


 * I will make further comments in the article's talk page. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Indian subcontinent, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''The UNSD is one of many UN subdepartments and doesn't account for the UN as a whole. For instance, the UN cartographic center and UNICEF don't list it in South Asia, yet, in violation of WP:DUE, you decide to add it to the article. That ain't proper editing. -'' LouisAragon (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you actually bother to check the source I added to the article? The World Economic Situation and Prospects report wasn't compiled by the UNSD, it was compiled by the UNCTAD. Every country may have their own way of classifying continents into subregions, but the UN generally includes Iran in South/Southern Asia. I think you are the one trying to push a POV here, not me.


 * BTW just FYI, most Iranians and Afghans actually self-identify their countries as part of Central Asia, not Southern Asia (UN's POV) or Western Asia/Middle East (CIA World Factbook's POV). James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "''Did you actually bother to check I added to the article?"
 * I did, but it seems you didn't. Page 142, down below, of the very same PDF file you linked : "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations." They are obviously copy-pasting the UNSD's definition, as thats exactly the same thing that the UNSD states on their website: "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations." Which is totally fine of course, but trying to present that as a "separate example" to push a POV won't be accepted.
 * "but the UN generally includes Iran in South/Southern Asia."
 * Yet another false assertion. The "UN" consists of various departments/agencies, all of which employ their own definitions. For instance, UNICEF puts Iran into Middle East, the "official" UN map (UN.Geospatial) on South Asia doesn't put Iran into the region, the WHO puts Iran into "Eastern Mediterranean", and the World Bank puts Iran into "MENA".,
 * "BTW just FYI, most Iranians and Afghans actually self-identify their countries as part of Central Asia, not Southern Asia (UN's POV) or Western Asia/Middle East (CIA World Factbook's POV)"
 * Self-interpreted WP:OR without any sources to back this up. I've noticed this before, but you are treating Wikipedia as some sort of social media outlet and presenting yourself as an "source" (such as here), which violates its core guidelines. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources (and neither me nor you are one), whilst paying attention to WP:DUE weight. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither your nor mine personal opinions or "IRL surveys" account for anything. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR
Hello. Regarding your edits at South Asia, the source you've added for territorial claims doesn't mention the Pakistani province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It speaks of the Durand Line, an internationally recognized border, which never gained recognition in Afghanistan. This was what I was trying to convey in my first edit summary. Kiu (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are right, but it is unlikely for the Taliban to claim Balochistan as a part of Afghanistan. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point was that we follow the sources strictly per WP:OR. If it's not an official stance it shouldn't be added on Wikipedia. Kiu (talk) 20:24, 28 July 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Very cool to see you on wikipedia!
I saw you when i was browsing the editing history of republika srpksa, awesome that you contribute to wikipedia. I love your videos. DirkjanenBert (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of garden cities, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ashbourne and Castle Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thank you for your edits to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to add an edit summary so other editors can understand a page's history more easily.

Regards Wizmut (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)