User talk:JaventheAlderick/Archive 1

Welcome to JaventheAlderick's talk page!
Welcome to my talk page! If you have any comments or feedback, just post it down somewhere below. I'll usually reply shortly.

Thank you!

JaventheAlderick (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JaventheAlderick. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Clubjustin Talkosphere  12:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited It's So Funny, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sing, Boundaries and Staple. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Young Pioneer Tours have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.  Yinta n  10:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi JaventheAlderick! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 11:28, Sunday, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija
but I can not rename article, do not have account on Wikipedia, rename it if you can already only Kosovo and Metohija. so is called article on Wikipedia on Serbian language (sr:Kosovo i Metohija), same as article Vojvodina (sr:Vojvodina) who is not called Autonomous Province of Vojvodina on Wikipedia on English language, already only Vojvodina

I'm sorry if you something do not understand, I have used Google Translate --178.79.44.138 (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's ok. I have done the changes already. JaventheAldericky (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Article again called Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija --178.79.44.138 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry that I haven not been able to respond to you for a while due to exams. The talk page of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija says that users are not allowed to move pages if there is already a article with the new name (in this case, Kosovo and Metohija). In this situation, it would be best for you to leave a message on the talk page. There you can explain why you want the page to be moved or merged. It may also be good for you to create a Wikipedia account for yourself. JaventheAldericky (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have just posted a request to move Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija to Kosovo and Metohija. You can find it here.

Kind note not to add station layout
Hi. Just to tell you kindly that please don't reinstate the sections on station layouts in Singapore MRT Stations. Although they are notable, remember that Wikipedia is not a brochure. Such information is unnecessary.

You can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davey2010#Your_recent_deletion_of_content_in_several_MRT_Stations_article to see more--LAi zhen kang (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi JaventheAlderick! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:36, Monday, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cantonment (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cantonment_%28disambiguation%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cantonment_%28disambiguation%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting of disambiguation pages
Please note that a disambiguation page is not a substantive article, but rather is merely an index of links to articles sharing a common name. Links on disambiguation pages are also used in tools that fix disambiguation links. Therefore, please observe MOS:DAB, and only include one blue link per line in a disambiguation page. Please do not link, for example, the name of the country, state, or city containing the ambiguous term. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; I didn't notice that such a rule existed for disambiguation pages. JaventheAldericky (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Need Help!!!
I am a student of General Education Academy, And i just tried to add some of the important information which was missing. Since i have been studying in this school from the last 12 years, I hope I am a reliable source and I didn't expect that my content would be removed. Can you please reply, why this happened and how I could avoid this in the future. Please do contact me at my email address sai.j.shetty@gmail.com Sai Shetty (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Sai Shetty, I reverted your edits to General Education Academy because you did not cite a reliable source. In Wikipedia, a reliable source is something that has been published and can be verified. In the context of your school, for example, newspaper articles (regardless of language and whether it is offline or online) that talk about your school can be used as a reliable source. Your school's official website can also be used as a source. However, your own words (as a source) is not considered a reliable source, because your words have never been published (either offline or online; no offence). Additionally, your own words (as a source) would also be considered as original research, which is also not allowed in Wikipedia. To avoid similar problems like this in the future, information that you add to any article should also be backed up with reliable sources. I hope my advice will help you to be a better editor in Wikipedia. Happy editing :) JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, out of security concerns, I would suggest not to share your email here. Anyone who comes to this talk page can see your email... JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Fascist
You fascist scumbag. 81.131.179.49 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please clarify. I'm not sure what you mean? JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please clarify your words. As far as I'm concerned, reverting your disruptive edit to the article Fascist (insult) does not make me a fascist. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for reverting the defamatory vandalism on Alistair Brownlee. May I ask, are you an administrator? Is that why you have been able to revert not one, but three edits? If so, please consider blocking that IP, they've been doing this for, like, 10 times in a row. TitanSymphony (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello TitanSymphony, I used Twinkle to revert the edits. Twinkle allows for the reverting of multiple edits made by the same user in one go. Alas, I'm not an administrator (unfortunately). JaventheAldericky (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Not an easy editor
Thanks you for your introduction note. I must admit that I am finding the editing a challenge. So much so that I am not even sure that I am entering this on the correct page. Clinton.dickerson (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Clinton.dickerson, although editing articles may seem like a daunting task, there is an excellent place on Wikipedia called The Teahouse, where new users like you can seek help from other experienced editors, even when I'm not around. Of course, you can always ask a question here, and I would be happy to help you. Happy editing! JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions
Hi JaventheAlderick and thanks for your contributions! I'm sorry, I believe you are mistaken about the usage of the short description.

From WP:SHORTDES, the short description should not be a full sentence unless absolutely necessary, and should be as brief as possible, with a target of 40 characters. That is very, very short, just a handful of words. You aded the short description to to Visa policy of China then made several edits, each time increasing the character count eventually topping out at 155 characters. I can see what you were trying to do, but the short description is not intended to be a synopsis of the article.

I edited it down to 82 characters (including spaces) - still over twice the target. You then added more words again. You reinserted "the People's Republic of China (Mainland China)" which I appreciate may be China's official title, plus clarification, but it is 47 characters on its own when the simple 5-character "China" is ideal for these purposes.

On the other hand I thank you for your revert because it caused me to look again at the short description and reduce it further. "Denotes" is superfluous, and a visa is a kind of permit. The policy applies whether one is a foreigner or not, it's just that the policy for a native is that no permit is required. So that can go too. "Policy on permit required to enter China" says just the essential (which is the aim) and is bang on target at 40 characters. Yay!

WP:SHORTDES also says: "It may be useful to suggest standard formats applicable to categories of articles". I see that you have usefully identified several other articles titled "Visa policy of [Country X]". I suggest that this form be adopted as standard format for all similar articles.

Best wishes to you, Captainllama (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for pointing this out to me. From WP:SHORTDES, it does appear that I have misunderstood the primary purpose of the short description, and for this I must apologise to you. I do concur that per WP:CONSISTENCY, the same short description format should be applied to other "Visa policy" articles. I will work on one and will progressively apply it to other "Visa policy" articles, including those still without a short description. Thank you once again, and my apologies. (I know WP:CONSISTENCY is meant for articles, but honestly, in my opinion, this probably should apply to short descriptions too.) JaventheAldericky (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well. Thank you for such a nice response.
 * But... you're at it again??
 * This is bizarre:


 * "Policy on permit required to enter China"
 * changed by JaventheAlderick to
 * "Policy on necessary permits required to enter China (PRC)"


 * It was bang on target at 40 characters, and you added 17. Why? Why add the word "necessary"? Things that are "required" are by definition "necessary". That's called "tautology" - saying the same thing twice - and is always to be avoided especially if there is, as acknowledged, a very limited character target. And "PRC", complete with an opening bracket and a closing bracket, making 5 characters. The same number of characters as the word "China" which is already there. Do you imagine there is confusion over the meaning of the word "China" in the article? I assure you, there isn't. Is this bloat improving the encyclopedia? Are you vandalising?


 * You have inflated several similar short descriptions with empty verbiage. Please stop, and revert. Thank you. Captainllama (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've re-edited the short descriptions back; however I've changed "permit" to "permits" since numerous countries may require foreigners to obtain multiple permits to enter specific parts of their territory. I hope you don't mind this change. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcoming users
Hi. I've noticed that you've been welcoming new users. This is good, but it is common practice only to welcome users who have already made constructive edits, and I noticed that some of the users you welcomed had made no edits at all. See Welcoming committee. As it says there, please always check their edits before welcoming users - for the reasons why, refer to Welcoming committee. An example is. At the time you placed the welcome template they had made no edits at all. Their only subsequent edit was a bit of silly vandalism, which is what took me there. You also forgot to sign that one. Cheers. -- Begoon 07:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted. JaventheAldericky (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

a recent pending change that was approved
Hi, I saw you approved some very significant changes to an article on philosopher Brian_Leiter that had not yet attracted any consensus on the Talk page. The IP address that proposed these changes had an earlier malicious edit reverted by another editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=905816863&oldid=905808532  The new changes alter the article so that most of its content attacks the subject. Some of the sources are also suspect. I think it would be good to revert to the earlier version and encourage a discussion o n the Talk page. Thank you. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Thanks for letting me know! As you said, consensus should be first achieved on the talk page before the content can be reinstated. JaventheAldericky (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick response!Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that's not my IP and Philosophy Junkie (PJ) incorrectly maligns me by accusing me of making this "malicious" edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=905816863&oldid=905808532, so much for that presumption of good faith you speak of. Second, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think some of my edits were good, especially the one where I replaced a blog link to an actual article, so I object to wholesale removal of the edits (why not just improve them PJ?). Third, I think PJ has some weird relationship to this article and its subject. He seems to be overly involved in this page (see user talk from 2015; he admits to email correspondence with the subject) and it strikes me as suspect that he asks others to revert and delete article content (perhaps so that it's not directly tied to him). 24.217.247.41 (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)you may call me 24


 * Hi 24, Welcome to Wikipedia! It's basic to courtesy here that one should hardly ever revert the work of another experienced editor, like JaventheAlderick.  Instead one calls the issue to that editor's attention for their consideration and discussion, as I did here.  I see that you had two other edits reverted on July 10, but not the one I mentioned, sorry for confusing them.  Thousands of people have e-mailed the subject with tips for his widely read blog.  I have edited hundreds of philosopher entries over the years trying to insure some consistency of high quality content and information.  You added links to blogs and personal faculty pages of individuals other than the subject, and those are unacceptable sources.  Some of the acceptable sources did not support the points.  This is why it is good, especially as a new contributor to Wikipedia, to reach consensus on the talk page first.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I have reviewed the content that you were trying to add to the article. While I understand that your edits were made in good faith, and that your edits ultimately do benefit the article as a whole (save for introducing a blog post as a source - see WP:BLOGS for that), other Wikipedia users can object to the content you are adding. This is why I concur with that a constructive discussion should first take place on the talk page (or a request for comment, whichever is fine). Also, it is normal and perfectly fine for an editior to be concentrated on editing specific topics or niche areas. Remember that Wikipedians come from around the world, and that everyone has their own unique interests. JaventheAldericky (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Javen, thank you for your feedback. I am new, so I am still learning which sources aren't allowed (I was unaware faculty pages were considered blogs, I replaced them with RS). There has been some discussion on the talk page regarding the notability of the 2016 mail incident, which is understandable, however, what is less reasonable to me is that insisted that he will do all of the edits himself this weekend, reverted clearly factual edits regarding the 2002 protest, and a NPOV edit I made regarding the Australian block quote that he added, and reverted some of my statements on the talk page claiming they violate BLP, which I do not think they do. Can you weigh in on BLP, or could you help me post on a request for comment on his reversion actions? Thank you. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that 24 has once again misnterpreted me and misrepresented what is mostly a productive discussion on the talk page. I would ask user 24 please to react more constructively to disagreements.   I certainly did not "insist" I would make all edits on the weekend.  I said I would fix a factual error about the number of signatories to a petition that 24 helpfully identifed.  The reason I offered to do that is, because the entry is protected due to past vandalism, only an extended confirmed user, like myself, can edit the entry directly without having to wait for approval.  I offered to do this to facilitate progress.  Unfortunately when 24 fixed the factual error, other material was added about which there had been no consensus which is why I reverted.  There has been an additional problem of 24 making allegations against the subject on the talk page in a misleading fashion that is not supported by the sources.  I do plan on making some edits to the article to incorporate productive points 24 made on the talk page.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely with PJ's characterization. Any edit I make, no matter how well sourced, he will delete, tell me to put it on the talk page, and then when he realizes I was right, will end by saying that he will add the info to the article the way he wants. It seems he is creating an environment in which I (and others) have to ask HIS permission for every single edit (e.g., adding what the 2002 protests were about, who started them, etc. --information relevant to why it occurred!). Instead of just clicking on the sources and coming up with an actual disagreement to the content added, or deleting the parts of my edits he found objectionable with an included explanation, he deletes or reverts the entire edit and then edits it the way he wants to. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi 24, these claims are not true, and I am sorry that is how things seem to you. I think you have made some good points on the talk page, and I disagree with you less than some of the others who have participated in that discussion and have been more critical of your input.  Let us try to work through the remaining issues there over the next week.  I have made some edits reflecting your helpful input.  I understand you are new to Wikipedia, and the slow pace of discussion is frustrating.  Thank you for your patience.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * and Alright. I've been looking through the conversation between both of you on the talk page of Brian Leiter. While I feel there has been a constructive and productive debate between both of you, there seem to be some misunderstandings that both of you have. I'll list and correct them down below.

For

1. Per WP:TALKO, you should not have deleted User 22's comments. The primary purpose of a talk page is meant for feedback and discussions on how to further improve an article. As such, other users should have the freedom to express their own viewpoints, including User 22. Deleting his/her comments is (probabaly) comparable to censorship, which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.


 * Thank you. If you think the phrases I deleted do not violate BLP, then please restore them.  I read them as accusing the subject of misconduct beyond his rhetorical excesses, and the sources did not support that.   But I may have been wrong to jump the gun.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Please do not bite User 22.

For

1. Try not to cite WP:AGF too many times while having a discussion with other users. This may lead to an unintended side effect of offending users like Philosophy Junkie, because they may feel that you are actually assuming bad faith. See this insightful essay for a better explaination.

2. Anyone can post a request for comment, including IP users.

For both:

1. There appears to be disagreements regarding the use of Buzzfeed News as a reliable source. As listed and shown in this table, consensus has established that Buzzfeed News is, in fact, a reliable source; however there is no consensus whether Buzzfeed itself is a reliable source or not.

2. In the same table, The New York Times is also considered a reliable source. Just FYI.


 * That is all. Please note that I am not disagreeing with either of you, per WP:AGF, because both of you have valid points; I simply wish to point out and correct your misunderstandings before an arguement starts up. Happy editing! JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
I see you recently accepted pending changes to August 10 and June 4 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline and the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know! I was unaware of the change. Sorry about that. JaventheAldericky (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)