User talk:Me Da Wikipedian

What do you mean?
What do you mean by "And I need 6 sources there and 2 sources in the other place because one for each time. If you can find one of all 6 or 2, please add it instead"?

Why do you need six source for a very simple statement "Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter."? A single source is sufficient. Ergzay (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are 2 statement.
 * Statement 1:2 attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. The two sources are each of the times. If you can find 1 source for both times, please do.
 * Statement 2:In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. The last 5 sources were needed, each verifying 1 recovery attempt. The first source actually didn't verify it. I have replaced it.
 * @Ergzay Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need a source for every single attempt. You only need the most recent source as it'll say something like "this is the second time this has been attempted". Ergzay (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually can't see the some of the bloomberg article since its subscribers only. I also don't see the 6th source saying that either. Does Bloomberg in fact say that? I would be happy to do it in one source if we can though@Ergzay Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In a previous mission, Rocket Lab caught a booster after a return from space, but the helicopter pilot chose to drop the rocket immediately for technical reasons." Ergzay (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay then. And the other claim...@Ergzay Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I know. Thank you, though. @Selfstudier Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Some comments regarding your participation in Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza
I didn't want to further derail the RM by responding to this directly there, but I would like to share that I'm concerned with how your remark that given that this section alone has nearly 400 comments...I'm not reading through all that reflects your approach to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a battleground, discussions are not votes, and the point of discussions such as requested moves is to reach consensus. I started participating in the discussion only a bit before you did, but I did, in fact, read the entire thing. I didn't even consider adding anything myself until I had read enough that I felt like I was familiar with the state of the discussion. If you're going to participate in a discussion like this, it's important to read what's already been said so that you can actually constructively contribute to moving it towards a resolution, instead of rehashing points that have already been made. Whoever eventually closes the discussion will have to read the whole thing, so it's only respectful to be willing to do what you're making someone else have to do here by adding your comments.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 19:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I know that "Wikipedia is not a battleground, discussions are not votes, and the point of discussions such as requested moves is to reach consensus" already. I didn't completely ignore the above comments (how do you think I knew about Option 4), I just didn't methodically read in detail through every single of hundreds of comments. Mostly because a lot of it is threaded discussion, including one reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a comment. There's more than 7 times more comments that participants. This is mostly people saying whether or not similar thing X is similar enough and whether policy X applies or not (in response to a vote) or something in that vain. Unless I plan to respond to that particular vote, do I need to read the massive threaded discussion? I understand that whoever closes it will have to read it. I am not adding 400 comments, I'm adding a few. @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relatively speaking you are adding a lot, to the point where WP:BLUDGEON is becoming an issue, in particular when you make comments based on no sources. I understand you are a new(ish) editor, but this is a CT and you should tread more carefully. Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. But bludgeon would be if I systemically replied to every comment disagreeing with me, not if I had 1 vote and a few reply (and then the threaded discussion of that). @Selfstudier Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

More concerns
Regarding this comment, which I feel is emblematic of the issue:

What people think is important for commonname

Not "people", as such. If you'd actually read WP:COMMONNAME, you would see that it says that what's "common" is determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. I've been trying to be as nice as I can and AGF but it's really starting to feel like you just refuse to do the reading necessary to engage meaningfully in this discussion. I haven't just been linking things because I like the way my text looks when it turns blue, you know. I keep feeling like you just don't understand the fundamentals of the relevant policies and guidelines here, so I've gone to some trouble to find pages that may help clarify to link for you (and re-skimmed them a bit myself to make sure I understand correctly as well), but you continue to show no signs of having read any of them. This is honestly firmly into the territory of disruptive at this point. With all due respect, if you're not willing to take some time to actually do the reading necessary to understand what's under discussion here before commenting, please stop derailing those of us who are trying to have a constructive discussion and reach a consensus on this article rename.  Kinsio  ( talk  ★  contribs ) 01:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll stop participating @Kinsio Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

How's it going?
Lots of vandals on Wikipedia eh? Good thing there's always someone who reverts them. 178.120.54.117 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Thank you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging a talk page for speedy deletion is a bold move
Given Wikipedia generally doesn't delete user talk pages at all, I was surprised to see your G1, not applicable to user talk pages. What made you think this page needed urgent deletion? Is there disruption which I've ignored? BusterD (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * G1 stands for General 1 which would imply that it applies everywhere. Anyways, I just thought (correctly) that it was nonsense. Not any more urgent than usual for SD. @BusterD Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true; WP:G1 "does not apply to pages in the user namespace".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User talk namespace is different than the user namespace. @Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two administrators tell you the same thing, but no doubt you know best.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. I explained my thought process. Also, maybe should it be updated then that it is also non-applicable for user talk namespaces. @Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need updating; your interpretation of it is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Provided you don't already know that policy, why would one reasonably get from that that it isn't applicable to the user talk namespace? @Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop pinging me. If you want to discuss this further, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , Me Da Wikipedia, a couple of thoughts/comments if you don't mind. First, realize that Bbb23 has been on Wikipedia for some two decades, and been an admin for long enough they've probably had to replace the mop head at least five times. (that last is a joke).  They are generally regarded as a patient admin.  So with that being said, take a look at User pages, where it calls out user pages, user talk pages and sub-pages all as falling into the broad category of user pages.  Yes, from a name-space perspective user and user talk are different, but look at it from a broader viewpoint.
 * Remember that WP:NOTBURO strives to keep bureaucracy to a minimum, so sometimes you won't see something detailed to the nth degree. It's not consistent, true, as some pages do have every possible name-space where that term might apply listed but that's because of past disruption (ie, does a topic ban mean just the article page, the article and talk page, everywhere?).  G1 does call out user namespace and not user talk namespace, but this is where that vast experience and background knowledge of Bbb23 and other can be helpful and good chance to simple say "Ahh.  Sorry for that, when the G1 text didn't list user talk explicitly, I thought it would be okay.  Thanks for letting me know."  And then think about posting on WT:CSD "Hey, how about adding user talk to the namespaces where G1 doesn't apply as I read the existing text and thought it was okay to use there as the current text only calls out the user namespace."
 * You've been here a few months and have picked up a lot, but there's always new stuff. I've had my hand smacked this year in places when I thought I had it right and it's just a learning opportunity. There is so much policy / guidelines / essays that nobody knows everything.  Even when you think you're right, Wikipedia works best if you take a moment and try to see things from the other person(s) viewpoint and sometimes go "Ah, gotcha.  Hmmm, this wasn't clear to me and I went down the wrong path."  Just a thought.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They are generally regarded as a patient admin. That's news to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I said generally ...  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ravensfire, thank you. In response to BusterD's question, I just explained my reasoning. Bbb23 then gave me a quote, and yeah I pointed out the obvious. I never said that I was right, and frankly I essentially said "You're right but that's confusing can we add it to the page." Anyways, in the future, I'll just skip the middle part. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Something important has been missed in this attempt to parse CSD criteria's fine hairs. Like User:Bbb23, I've been around a while myself. Note there's no CSD criteria for user talk. Why is that? Outside of MfD process (and Oversight) we don't generally delete user talk EVER, much less self- or speedy requests. We often courtesy blank as an AtD. We might anonymize. It's quite rare a requested talk page deletion is discussed at any major talk board. In my understanding, we keep generally talk space intact so we may preserve the talk history for attribution. Users are generally speaking allowed to manage their own talk space as they wish. My question is this: Why was this even on your radar, Me Da Wikipedian? Why did you feel the new user's talk space gave you any reason for concern? Did you have a policy or guideline which is applicable? BusterD (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I just happened to find it looking through new pages, and it was pretty clearly nonsense so I tagged it. I didn't really think much more about it until it became a whole thing here. The policy/guideline which I thought was applicable was CSD G1. @BusterD Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not applicable for exactly the reason this discussion (and that guideline) has made clear. You and I and (especially) new users are allowed to say stupid things on their talk pages. I see you're doing reviewing work and have occasional interaction with speedy deleting user pages for various reasons. You're expected to make mistakes and nobody is chiding you for this one. Would you mind NOT policing user talkspace in the future? It's a form of WP:BITING. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (and strictly as a matter of style, it's not necessary to ping experienced editors already in active discussion with you) BusterD (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to not police User Talkspace (except for like obvious vandalism/personal attacks) for a while. "it's not necessary to ping experienced editors already in active discussion with you" - Why? Particularly if a discussion takes more than 2 seconds, why isn't it helpful to get pinged when someone actually responds to you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeated unneeded pinging may be annoying to the receiver. You may choose to accept our suggestions as you wish. A responsible wikipedian usually pays attention to active discussions in which they've taken part. I assume good faith others will do likewise. That's why I rarely ping to a thread more than once. I also respond to reasonable feedback, like that offered by Bbb23 (who I'll deign not to link here, knowing they'll read this unprompted). BusterD (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Les Valls de Valira article rollback
Hey! I saw your comment on my user talk page. If it's about the IPA transcription, its from the Catalan Government's Official Gazetteer of Major Toponymy of Catalonia (Nomenclàtor oficial de toponímia major de Catalunya).

Here's the article provided with its officially sanctioned Western Catalan IPA transcription (where I got it from): https://datacloud.icgc.cat/datacloud/descarregues-web/bd/pubs/nomenclator/alt_urgell/valls_valira.pdf 79.152.115.246 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Great. You can add that as a source after the claim. You may want to see Citing sources, Reliable sources, and Verifiability to help. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've restored the pronunciation as we don't routinely require sources for it. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't? Thank you for telling me. Also, why are least 2 people stalking my talk page in a 24 hour span? @Kashmiri Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Jayda fransen
I did cite the source 61.239.125.153 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a source. This is the diff I reverted of yours: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversions of edits on Alex Barré-Boulet
Your recent reversal of edits on wiki page for NHL Alex Barré-Boulet is both disruptive and unwarranted. All citations included are from credible sources as can be seen in the underlying code. Kindly restore this. 47.54.219.33 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the collateral damage, but all claims you added to seem to have been unsourced, and you also seem to have removed sourced things without explanation. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:Kakuda
Hello Me Da Wikipedian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Kakuda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * How is it not nonsense? What does that mean to you exactly in the context of the article? @Firefangledfeathers Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't. I think it's most likely one of the following: "implausible theories, vandalism, hoaxes, [or] fictional material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay...should I now tag it as G3 then or something?@Firefangledfeathers Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest just reverting it and leaving the talk page for future—hopefully productive—discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And done@Firefangledfeathers Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)