User talk:Mewulwe

Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)
You cannot simply erase it and redirect empty page to "Czech Republic" (it is incredibly arrogant !!!!!!), it is the article about the NAME with many references and description of objective reality. On that article cooperated many specialistsNeewi (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a nonsensical piece of POV-pushing, so I can. Mewulwe (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is not only incorrect, but really stupid, deleting facts is unacceptable (now all particular information word by wor in Names of the Czech Republic and because you are hidden and unable to discuss about it, you do it apparently from some personal reasons. You have started this war, so you will have it. Because you are under strange protection of some other persons from Wikipedia, I handed this problem over to other media and my article about the "democratic" system of Wikipedia, where your arrogant behaviour reigns, will be published in newspapers. Neewi (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic
For the record, I agree with you that "Czechia" should not be mentioned in the lead- I just want to discuss it on the talk page and reach a consensus because there doesn't seem to be a clear one at the moment. Please use the talk page before making edits like that please (or at least after you are reverted the first time). Once again, I agree with you completely. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the talk archives. This was settled years ago. Someone must have recently reintroduced Czechia without consensus. Mewulwe (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Cause I read the archives yesterday and this is the section where it was discussed: Talk:Czech Republic/Archive1, and it certainly does not seem like an official consensus. Can you please point out an official discussion and completed !vote on the talk page that shows a consensus to exclude the name? The DominatorTalkEdits 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth dates etc.
Thanks for the good work you're doing picking up unreferenced birth dates! I noticed you doing it on a couple of pages I'd edited. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, except you are adding them back referring to sources which themselves got them from Wikipedia. To reference a date that has already been on Wikipedia, you need to find a source that either dates from before the date was added to Wikipedia, or obviously maintains an impeccable standard of accuracy, so that there is no suspicion it would ever take information from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's increasingly a problem for web sources - and indeed recent sources in general. Journalists routinely copy from WP, and I've also sometimes noticed academic articles doing so. (The problem there is that they're embarrassed about doing it, and so don't knowledge their source. At least the Library of Congress Name Authority file, when it takes WP as a source, says so.) I may have made the wrong judgement about Election Politique Citoyen - it looked at first sight independent of the WP page Kurt Tibbetts (which since I touched it has also become crazily swollen by puff about his Lions Club involvement!). But KT's birthdate was added 3 September 2008 by an IP user, which is plenty of time for it to have been copied around the web indiscriminately. Bayle's initial idea for the Dictionnaire Historique et Critique was to compile a dictionary entirely composed of exposing published falsehoods. We need his reincarnation. So thanks again. Dsp13 (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
This is much better, thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Daily Times
Daily Times is a reliable source, please discuss before reverting. Thanks!---  Managerarc   talk  17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did discuss it in the inline comment. Go and find a real source before reverting. Mewulwe (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Shafik
All the previous Egytian Prime Ministers bios infoboxes use the numbering. If you don't stop now, I'll report you to the 'Edit warring noticeboard'. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. All the other articles need to be reverted as well. Egyptian prime ministers carry no numbers. Adding numbers based on your own count is OR. You'd need a source explicitly describing him as 58th PM. Good luck with that. Incidentally, I noticed you edited Rhodri Morgan - I wonder why you didn't make him "1st First Minister of Wales"! Mewulwe (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They add up to 58. I did make Morgan 1st, but a group editors are against me. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, I wonder why. They may add up to 58 according to some list, but if the list is erroneous then so are the numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, let's remove the numbering from 'all' the Egyptian PM infoboxes. Not just Sharfik's, agreed? GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also from all the other categories you added numbers too. U.S. presidents are almost the only ones who properly have numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, just the Egyptian Prime Ministers. We don't want you starting up a 'fight' across the whole project. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for "Consistancy is important to me." Mewulwe (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agreed to remove the numbering from the Egyptian PMs, so quit while you're ahead. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend you just agreed as a compromise. You were wrong, and not just about the Egyptian PMs. Mewulwe (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Freundel Stuart
He's the 7th Prime Minister of Barbados, which is sourced in that article. Next time, check the article over before you 'automatically revert' me & claim OR. Also, knock-off the stalking. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had a source, why did you write in the edit summary "I counted the PMs"? Obviously it was OR, you just looked for a source afterwards. Next time, do so before. Mewulwe (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was already there (in the article). GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Adel Safar birthdate
Rather than editwarring and undoing without explanation, please go to the talk page and discuss why the birthdate doesn't belong. GB fan (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained it the first time by noting it was unsourced. Kintetsu on the other hand reverts without providing a source or another explanation for his action. Mewulwe (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you left a edit summary one time. Edit summaries are very useful, but since your first removal you haven't used them to explain why you are undoing the edits.  Edit summaries are not a substitute for using the talk page for discussing the issue.  Can you please leave a message on the talk page explaining why you are removing the birthdate, it would be helpful.  p.s. I also left a very similar message for Kintetsubuffalo.  GB fan (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no point in repetition, and there is nothing more for me to discuss at this point, until anyone makes a case FOR the inclusion of this date. Mewulwe (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack William Pithey
Could you please explain this edit? What makes the source that I provided for the year of death "ridiculous" exactly? As I pointed out in my edit summary, the source is an acceptable one to use according the list of resources at WikiProject Unreferenced articles. Even without this, however, your accusation that the site merely copied from Wikipedia is baseless (again). If this site merely copies from Wikipedia, how do you rectify the fact that for Sein Win (Brigadier General), another DOD that you removed as unsourced that was around for much longer than Pithey's, the same site not only lacks the date of death that Wikipedia claimed, but doesn't even have the same year of birth? Canadian  Paul  01:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you restored not just the year. Second, if you weren't blindly following what some WikiProject says and had some expertise on the matter, you would see that your source is palpably unprofessional, it being a simple ripoff of rulers.org (which notably doesn't have the death year in question) augmented by all kinds of junk copied without the slightest discernment from Wikipedia or any other random website. An archive.org analysis will show that it added the date AFTER it was included in Wikipedia (it didn't have it as of October 2009, the last archived version; it was added in Wikipedia in July 2009). If you still think it's baseless, I'll take any bet with you that worldstatesmen.org will not be able to provide you with a reliable source for the date. As to Sein Win, nowhere did I say that the site copies everything from Wikipedia; presumably it hasn't searched for that one since with an assumed birth date of 1929, the person seemed likely alive whereas a person born in 1903 should have died by now. Mewulwe (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is "blindly following" anything; it would be wise of you assume good faith before making your commentary. I investigated the source and, wondering about its reliability myself, did a search on Wikipedia to see whether or not it would be acceptable and found consensus that it was usable. If you wish to challenge or redefine a former consensus, then you should do so at the reliable sources noticeboard; the reason that we have consensus as a decision making tool on Wikipedia is to avoid senseless edit warring based on two users' personal opinions. Rather than feed into this, however, I'll let the matter drop for now, as this discussion is little more than academic; I have seen the original source cited and it does confirm the death details that were originally in the article. It is unfortunate that said source was poorly cited, and thus you were correct to remove it, but once I have found the time to go back and access the hard copy source, I will restore the details with a proper citation. Canadian   Paul  02:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you wonder about a source's reliability and let the question be settled by a Wikipedia noticeboard instead of your own judgment, that's exactly what I meant with "blindly following." As to the "original source cited," it is just a link to Google Books which doesn't actually produce a result, so I wonder how you found a source there. Mewulwe (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to Google books used to actually point to a book... perhaps it has been removed for copyright reasons... hence it would have been much better had the reference cited the book rather than the book search... but it's just a matter of dredging up my old computer and pulling out the note... Canadian   Paul  04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pilsen/Plzen/Plzeň in English
Hi Mewulwe, just wondering why you are deleting "also Plzen or Pilsen," from this page? Pilsen and Plzen are both commonly used in the English-language press (Google "Plzen" and site:.guardian.co.uk, for example) and by the City of Pilsen itself (i.e. http://www.pilsen.eu/en/).

The wiki page about Cracow/Krakow/Kraków is worded similarly and recognises the local spelling and alternate English spellings for the city. Why would it be inadmissible to do the same for Pilsen, especially when the other two spellings are so widely used?

Bezzemek (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Plzen is used because some people don't know how to type ň. This goes for any name with a diacritic. Should we therefore include a diacritic-stripped version as an "English name" in every such article? Might as well list any common misspellings if you want to stretch the common-use principle to absurdity. Krakow should be removed just the same. Cracow, however, is a distinct English name, unlike Pilsen, which was simply the German name and was used in English naturally at the time it was an Austrian city and German was the local language, plus for the usual lag time thereafter. If it is sometimes still used in English, it is mistaken or just an attempt to provide a more easily pronouncable version for touristic purposes. That doesn't make it an English name. Mewulwe (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As to historical references, John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, published well before 1620, references Pilsen, not Plzen. I quite honestly cannot find anything in the English language published before that date that mentions Plzen (with or without haček), can you? Jumping ahead to 2012, Pilsen is used very often in English. The City of Pilsen officially refers to itself in English as the City of Pilsen, not the City of Plzeň. Likewise for the ECOC committee, see http://www.plzen2015.net/?lang=en "A more pronounceable version for touristic purposes" is why we Anglophones never embraced Kyiv, though both spellings for the Ukrainian capital are correct in English. Bezzemek (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the original? What's online seem to be only newer edited versions. In any case a single example doesn't prove anything, and there are obviously not enough pre-1620 English books mentioning the city available to determine what was used then. Furthermore, even if German wasn't yet the local language in Bohemia, it was still under Austrian rule (and even before that, part of the "German" Holy Roman Empire), so in that sense the German name qualifies as a local name, meaning that if it was used in English that doesn't make it an English name. Mewulwe (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, for the future, then, when someone reads something in English about "Pilsen", they should absolutely always understand that it solely refers to some little village or neighborhood in the United States. The name "Pilsen" is never, ever, ever used in English, ever; and if it is, it is always wrong as a typographical error would be wrong, and this is the reason why any and all reference to "Pilsen" (e.g. note that it is also referred to as Pilsen) must be completely deleted from the page about Plzeň. Am I summarizing your opinion correctly? Bezzemek (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It may be sometimes used in English, but that doesn't make it an English name. And it should be in the article, described as a German name, not twice as if it's somehow separately a German and English name which are just coincidentally the same. Mewulwe (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree Pilsen is used in English. Feel free to delete the German language reference. Bezzemek (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is German. Why don't you just delete the additional mention? Mewulwe (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Muammar gaddafi Date of birth
I cited an article clearly stating his date of birth as 7 June 1942. Is there a reason that this should be considered not true? Jeancey (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This dates from August 2011 and is obviously copied from Wikipedia, where this date was added in 2008 by an IP that edited almost nothing else. No source whatsoever pre-2008. Many sources state explicitly that his exact birth date is not known. Mewulwe (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would doubt that you could say "obviously copied." In these cases, it might be best to leave it, at verification needed, and contact the BBC to see where they got the date from. It's possible its from some obscure interview or something. Jeancey (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BBC like pretty much everyone else readily copies from Wikipedia. You wouldn't even get a reply since they will not admit it. There is absolutely no reason to believe in the correctness of the date, so leave it out unless you can find a pre-2008 source, before it gets copied even more. Mewulwe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear that 7 June 1942 has been used since the 90's see this talk page post here. The date has been restored to the article. Jeancey (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Óscar Mendoza Azurdia
Hi,

I strongly disagree with this edit, so I have raised the issue at WP:BLPN. You may follow and/or comment on the discussion there. Canadian  Paul  22:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale changes of "Czechia" to "Czech Republic"
Hi Mewulwe, Please stop your mass changing of "Czechia" to "Czech Republic". Both terms are official and acceptable English and, AFAIK, "Czechia" is not deprecated on Wikipedia. I have held off reverting your changes until I have sounded out WikiProject Czech Republic. Feel free to argue your case there. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Czechia is not official nor in common English use. Mewulwe (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Malawi Presidents
The first two are numbered, so why not the next two. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the first two shouldn't be either. Mewulwe (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Numbering Heads of State is done across many bio articles. There's no harm in it, so why seek an edit war over it? GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter how much it "is done" (to a large extent by yourself), it is wrong. Those numbers are almost always not official and thus potentially wrong and, in any case, numbering can be arbitrary with regard to multiple non-consecutive terms, acting, interim, de facto, etc. leaders, periods of disputed leadership, etc. Even where such ambiguities do not yet exist, they may in the future, and then you would have to remove all numbers again, unless you want to have a situation of having some leaders numbered and others not. Mewulwe (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't mind seeing the current President not being number. But the previous President should be numbered & right now, you're merely arguing out of spite. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no difference in this respect between the current and previous president. You are not making any sense. Mewulwe (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Check other Heads of State. It's very common to number former Heads of State bio articles across Wikipedia. An example would be the Egptian Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're repeating yourself. See above. Mewulwe (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you being spiteful? Are you gonna revert ever editor who adds the numberings? If you hate them that much? then remove'em from all 4 Malawi Presidents. Atleast be consistent. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will when you stop reverting. No need to have four parallel edit wars. Mewulwe (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other will decide if the Malawi Presidents should or shouldn't be numbered, not you or me. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda
See BLPN. Your reasoning is unsupported by facts and therefore should not be used to remove reliable sources and information. Stop edit warring. – Connormah (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

BLPN - J Banda
hI, there is a thread opened at the BLP noticeboard to discuss J Banda;s date of birth, Please join in the discussion there, - thanks - You  really  can  07:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
 * You're now at the limit of WP:3RR on Joyce Banda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

sometimes.....
Hi - sometimes here at Wiki you can be right but still have to let things go - I am in a bit of agreement with you, that there is clearly no official release of her date of birth = however consensus and the usually acceptable sourcing is against you/us = please don't remove it again as there is a call for you to be blocked if you do - regards You  really  can  08:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mewulwe, I have looked over your edits and suggest that unless you change how you are interacting, you probably should be blocked. drs (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the one knowingly introducing false sources. You came out of nowhere to the Banda article adding a false and superfluous source - obviously you must have read the meta-discussion and therefore must have known it to be false and added it for inexplicable reasons, indicating either trolling or gross ineptitude. Mewulwe (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you admitting to introducing false sources? Re: Joyce Banda, I thought the one I added was impressively reliable. Actually, I have had a bit of experience with strong-minded editors who knew far more than I did about how to effectively edit on Wikipedia. One of the concepts I learned early on: When a section of an article is known to be controversial, stop reverting, open up a new section on the talk page and have at it in a WP civilized manner. Your sense of what is a good source needs to be discussed, I suggest. drs (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm accusing you of introducing false sources, seeing that yours doesn't even state what you're using it as a source for, never mind that it isn't reliable, and that there isn't any need for further sources anyway. The whole matter has already been discussed, and, it seemed, closed as soon as the Malawian sources were brought up. Now you and those who earlier wanted to introduce other bad sources (BBC, CBC) continue to make pointless reverts just for the sake of it. Guess I'll just have to wait until everyone has moved on before cleaning it up finally. Mewulwe (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have started a section in the Joyce Banda article's talk page to examine the reliability of the source. Remember, none of us own this article. Part of Wikipedia's ways include a welcome to all editors to help develop any article. It is kind of rough and tumble at times, but Wikipedia and other democratic processes have that in common. I suggest you view all editors as your colleagues in the developing of this article. It is much more fun that way. drs (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democratic process, and it's hard to "welcome" an editor who isn't making sense. Even so, I'm not getting personal. I can't avoid that my pointing out that some edit or argument doesn't make sense may reflect on the user who made it. Mewulwe (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is why I say that Wikipedia is a democratic process: First, everyone can edit here. When all the people can take part, that is democracy in action. Second, consensus is valued here at Wikipedia. This is a powerful democratic process. It is harder to achieve than voting 50% plus one. But the end results are stronger. Third, wikipedia has "democratic institutions" to resolve differences; i.e. the various notice boards, etc. All the editors are welcome to take part in helping to solve these differences. It surprises me that you don't consider Wikipedia to be democratic. Why do you say that? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, that's what Wikipedia says. Which makes sense insofar as truth is not established by voting. The idea is that rational argument counts. Of course that doesn't hold up in practice when you have people who just start bullshitting when they're losing the argument. Mewulwe (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Concern for your reverting of Reliable Sources
Hi Mewulwe, before seeking action on a dispute resolution notice board, I thought I would address my concerns to you first. I have been directed away from the Joyce Banda article to accomplish this. Since we have only recently interacted, it seems appropriate for us to come to an understanding before asking others to get involved. In my opinion, you need to quit reverting the work of other editors and start a discussion on the appropriate talk page; in this case the Joyce Banda talk page. Let's talk. It is time. drs (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you well know, the whole issue has been discussed at length on the BLP noticeboard. Mewulwe (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the reverts have been discussed; but your behavior in particular has not been discussed. As I look over your interactions with other editors, I notice a pattern of disrespect toward your fellow editors. One of the basic rules of Wikipedia is Civility. I suggest that you need to be more civil to your fellow editors. Give sound reasons for your views and let your fellow editors do the same. drs (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very funny. As any reasonable person can see, I have been the only one in the whole dispute who did give sound reasons to his views. I respect any constructive editor, I don't respect incompetence and trolling. As far as your behaviour goes, let's see: you thought you'd have to "welcome" me even though I have been here before you, and in the very process you prove your ignorance of common behaviour standards by posting on my user page instead on talk. You came here suggesting I "should be blocked" and then proceed to lecture me about respect and civility. Physician, heal thyself. Mewulwe (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed that your user page had not yet been activated. Consequently, I thought you were new to Wikipedia. When I first began, another editor posted the welcome on my user page, so I have assumed that such is common practice. I have quite an extensive watch list and noticed the way an editor was getting exasperated with your responses. I thought it would be a good idea if I exerted some influence to have the interaction more civil. I am still concerned for your lack of civility. Thanks for your response, and yes, I have noted that you have been on wikipedia at least a year longer than I have. Let's work together, rather than at odds. drs (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to have a userpage. You also don't need asterisks in normal talk. Now if you see an editor getting exasperated with another, maybe you should actually investigate who's right in substance. And if you want to work together constructively, why don't you start by removing the superfluous reference for the birth date? Mewulwe (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, asterisks are not needed, but I find them helpful. This is your talk page, so I will honor your wish for no asterisks. I am not convinced that the reference is totally superfluous. I consider book citations stronger than news reports. In my opinion, even without the month, the year in the citation I have added strengthens the documentation for the year. If you really feel that the added citation is making the Joyce Banda article inferior, may I ask why? drs (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a reliable source, and utterly superfluous. Original news reports are much stronger than a book citation in a case like this. A book just giving a birth year could have gotten it wrong in many ways. It's hard to see in comparison how a news report from the country concerned about an actual birthday celebration of the person could be mistaken. Mewulwe (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that news reports that discuss a birthday celebration trump most other sources. We may want to go to the article's talk page discussion where we are also discussing these things. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Just for context: I was looking a list of people who recently passed 1,000 edits in the mainspace, and it looks like that happened recently for you. Thanks for sticking around. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Add me to this - welcome - you entered a controversy and kept your cool  - Remember discussion and consensus are king and queen here - Best -  You  really  can  23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wish someone would tell this to User:GoodDay, who insists on reverting without discussion. Mewulwe (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were the only editor in the discussion who was opposed to numbering & still you insist on deleting. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the only editor in the discussion, period. I justified my position and am ready to continue to entertain any opposing argument. You basically just said "I don't like it" which doesn't count. Mewulwe (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Until you get a consensus for deletion, I'm just gonna keep restoring it. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unchallenged edits don't need consensus. If you want to challenge it, you need to discuss. You are refusing to do so. Mewulwe (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But your edits were & are being challenged. So stop being a dick, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The barnstar above is for edits improving the encyclopedia, not edit warring or sniping at each other. You're both smart and experienced enough to know you should stick to critical comments about content, not the contributor. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised of 3RR on Joyce Banda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning
I was coming here to start a new section about your behavior on Joyce Banda, but it actually seems more relevant to put it here. The shortest explanation is that your editing is textbook tendentious editing. You are twisting around the meaning of consensus in such a way that it seems like any action you take is automatically correct, and it's up to others to somehow prove the impossible. You've made it such that no one can ever "prove" to your satisfaction that that number goes into the infobox, and thus somehow your version is automatically better. Your position in other sections of that talk page is also concerning. Finally, you are edit warring on the article. So, stop. Or I will block you. I know that Steven Walling means well above, but having been involved with tendentious editors on other articles, I know that simply having a high edit count does not mean one is a good editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're not even giving GoodDay the same warning (who added these numbers - in literally hundreds of articles - without any consensus) only proves that you are being tendentious. If no one can prove that these numbers make sense, it's probably because they don't. I'm open minded, but things are as they are. One can't prove that 2 and 2 is 5 either. Mewulwe (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've a growing concern about you, as you've expanded your dispute with me to 2 other articles (the current Presidents of Iran & Venezuela). These actions by you on those other articles, smack of WP:HOUND GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha. This is one and the same issue; I'm not following you into different issues I had no previous interest in - unlike those who join you in reverting on the numbers issue, like Nomoskedasticity. Perhaps you might want to tell him to stop hounding me if you're concerned about this behaviour. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mewulwe, you clearly haven't read WP:TE, because, by definition, I can't be tendentious with reference to that article since I've never edited it or its talk page. I strongly recommend you read it, because I am not just randomly commenting here--I will block you if you do not change your behavior. Your position right now, as far as I can see is this: "I am right (on the numbering of Presidents). Even though no other editor has agreed with me at all, my position is still correct and thus I can edit the article to match my opinion. Unless others can personally convince me, by definition there is no consensus, and thus my version of the article should stand." This is, well, wrong. When everyone else in a discussion disagrees with you, you are the one who has to show that there is consensus for your position. And that does not mean that when you make a point and no one "refutes" you within 24 hours, you suddenly have consensus. Feel free to follow dispute resolution procedures on this matter, but do not either edit war or attempt to "win" the argument simply by overwhelming and outlasting everyone else. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to WP:TE, I said you're being tendentious, for the reasons stated. If I lack a consensus, certainly GoodDay does, and his establishing facts by his mass edits is far worse than my timid attempts to counteract this. Since he is practically the only one who has single-handedly put these contentious numbers up, it is bizarre that you apparently accept this as the default position, to change which _I_ would need a consensus. Nor is it true at all that I am the only one opposing it; GoodDay admitted he had problems on the same issue with other users too, and that he then backed away only at the specific articles, while happily continuing to add the same kind of numbers to other articles! Quite on the contrary, he is the only one who actually is for the numbers. Anyone else who has interfered on the issue (such as Nomoskedasticity) demonstrably just "hounded" me, to use GoodDay's term, i.e. came to this after having had a dispute with me on another issue on that page or elsewhere, without ever having cared about the number issue before and still refusing to engage in any serious discussion of it beyond some drive-by "I like it" kind of comment. I'm not aware of a policy that requires one to get a consensus when opposed only by people refusing to discuss. You are also wrong that my position is that others have to convince me, it would be quite enough if they take a viable counter-position and defend that against my objections as I defend mine; what GoodDay did was that he aborted the discussion, plainly unable to even respond to my points. Nor do I attempt to "overwhelm and outlast" anyone; I attempt to win the argument by actually winning the argument. Mewulwe (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But you haven't won the argument. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did by default, since you aren't even carrying on any argument. Mewulwe (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We both disagree on the numbering of the infobox -- thus a stalemate between us. You're no righter then me & I'm no wronger then you. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a stalemate would be a discussion that reached a point where both sides agree to disagree because it has been reduced to an inherently subjective point. This is not the case here. I made well-reasoned points which you aren't capable of countering at all, so now you just say "we disagree." That's not good enough; see I just don't like it. Mewulwe (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I counted up the Malawian Presidents on my hand & Banda comes out as the 4th. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the nth time you repeat this meaningless statement that no one denied. Mewulwe (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

More re: the barnstar above
Hi Mewulwe, we have interacted several days now and I have developed an appreciation for your determination as an editor. We have actually worked through an issue or two. I like the collaboration. Regarding the ordinal numbering edit war, I don't see why it is such a big concern. There is no stated WP policy on it. The soundness of your logic does not resolve the situation. We need a WP rule, or leave it alone, IMO. Let's put our efforts into developing the Joyce Banda article. With her newly acquired role as president comes reliable news reports with new information. The article provides a BLP of an important person helping to shape Africa and the world. drs (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you asked GoodDay why it is such a big concern to him? If there's no WP rule, perhaps he should have left it alone instead of adding all the numbers on his own. Mewulwe (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this is not just about why are you picked on more than the other editor. Someone has to be the adult here. lol. Unless a written policy is being violated additions to the article should not be deleted. Even if policy was being violated, once an edit war begins, the talk page should address the issue. There is no violation of policy. An editor has added information. Civility seems to expect that, rather than deleting something because of personal better logic, let's go to the article's talk page and try to win a consensus. Unless a policy has been violated, it seems that additions should not be deleted without a near consensus. drs (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to "go" to the article's talk page, I have been discussing there all the time. If there's a dispute, both sides have to discuss in good faith. GoodDay isn't, nor does anyone else argue for his view, therefore the default should be to remove. As far as written policy, well how about WP:V? You might find sources describing Banda as 4th president, but certainly not for Chávez as 61st; this would remove the majority of the numbers and then the few remaining ones are obviously an inappropriate aberration from the infobox standard. Mewulwe (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is true, but now we are discussing the matter on two talk pages. You can discuss it wherever you wish, of course. On the other issue, something may seem an inappropriate aberration to you and may seem quite sensible to another editor, but, IMO, unless it violates WP policy, it should be discussed before it is deleted. drs (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You posted here, so I replied here. It should be discussed before it is deleted: indeed, and I have discussed it. It should also be discussed if it is to be kept: and GoodDay didn't, so he forfeited. Mewulwe (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Venzuelan Presidents
As there's many Presidents of Venzeula, I've opened a discussion at the Hugo Chavez article - concerning whether or not he is the 61st President of that country. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mewulwe, you are invited!
I was thinking you could add something about Czech universities, as we are seeking to share information. --Comparativist1 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

George Saitoti

 * Discussion moved to the appropriate talk page

I will revert your edit to the above mentioned article because your opinion of the Kenyan media is highly irrelevant and also because the source I had cited was verifiable. The source met the established wikipedia criteria for identifying reliable sources. Please remember wikipedia encourages constructive factual dialogue when it comes to editing conflicts.Thuralt (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion, which does not refer specifically to Kenyan media but to media in general, is not just my opinion but demonstrable and highly relevant fact. "Reliable" sources have repeatedly copied material, including vandalism, from Wikipedia. This happens especially with obituaries. I will thus revert your edit. Mewulwe (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how your opinion is a "relevant" fact and even if in any case it is, the source provided is, as I said, verifiable and reliable and you should only remove it if it can be irrefutably proven to be biased or otherwise unreliable. It is seen in the article's history that you reverted good faith edits without clear reasons and are attempting to do so now. This is quite suspect. I will, however, assume that your actions are in good faith and look for other sources but should there be none I will ultimately be forced to revert your edits.Thuralt (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mewulwe, Thuralt asked me to comment here. You are correct that news sources can copy Wikipedia--it happens all of the time. However, what is your evidence that it happened here? What is your evidence that the news source did not do it's own independent fact checking? You cannot simply make an assertion that the information was copied from WP without evidence; unless you can produce that, the information can be included as reliable sourced. So if Thuralt re-adds it, and you continue to disagree, I'm afraid you'll need to take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard and see if uninvolved editors want to weigh in on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't assert that it was copied, I assert it is likely that it was. The evidence is as usual: no pre-Wikipedia source for a birth date of a politician who has been prominent for decades, then suddenly when the person dies the date from Wikipedia appears in all the obituaries. Seems common sense then that the burden of proof lies on those who want to include the date. They just have to find a source dating from before May 2012. Mewulwe (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...interesting objection; if the coverage is universally after our date, that may be a good indication. The best place to solve this would be WP:RSN; if i have time i'll take it there, but either of you may want to do it if you want an answer faster (it could be more than a week before i get to it). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a valid concern, Mewulwe, but it doesn't irrefutably prove the information was copied from wikipedia. If that is the case, then many other sources would be excluded simply because they might be copied from wikipedia. That line of thought seems spurious, at best. Yes, the burden of evidence, which I have asked you to empirically disprove as reliable, lies with me but one editor alone cannot just decide to declare a source unreliable especially on a might be premise. That would be blatant gaming. There could be any number of reasons why the article's subject's birth date wasn't cited and sourced beforehand but that doesn't imply in the future that editors can't add sources just because it was done after the death of the subject and thus might be copied from wikipedia.Thuralt (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Might be" is quite enough. If the earliest available source for any information is Wikipedia itself, it shouldn't be used because any reference would be potentially circular. Mewulwe (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Blantant deletion
I noted that you removed the date and month of birth from George Saitoti article. it is uncouth and non-wikipedia behaviour. If you have a question about that, you can engage the editor or start a discussion at the appropriate discussion page for clarity or any other comments.Kindly desist from that.--stephenWanjau  Talk to Me.   Email Me.  16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you read the discussion on the talk page, or right above on this page, and stop adding an unsourced date. Mewulwe (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Huxley
Which other sources say Cambridge City? Just curious. – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This says so, and this implicitly but strongly suggests he died at Addenbrooke's Hospital which is in Cambridge. Mewulwe (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, never noticed any of those. What do you think we should do in the article? List both with cites? Or just leave it? – Connormah (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cambridge can be cited. Grantchester should be left out, since it is likely Wikipedia-originated, some idiot just making something up in the absence of explicit information ("oh, he was living in Grantchester, so let's assume he died there") and media then copying it as usual. Mewulwe (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi Mewulwe. FYI, this revert and many similar by over a dozen other editors are under discussion at WP:ANI. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pls desist from vandalising Commondreams-entry
"Me-wulwa", pls stop vandalising the entry for CommonDreams.org by deleting the referenced section on legitimate criticism of the article-site. Your deletions appear blatantly politically biased. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not referenced. Mewulwe (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure the section you dislike is referenced. "Me-wulwa", you're lying in your teeth - or being deliberately dense: 2 refs. in 4 places are supplied there. Pls desist yr editwarring vandalism. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * notmytribe.com is not a reliable source. Mewulwe (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is - but your opinion is not. And Craig Brown, owner of CommonDreams - whom you for obviously selectively biased reasons fail to mention - is a reliable reference here, too. So stop vandalising. You should be ashamed of yrself.


 * In the interest of full disclosure, what's yr relationship to CommonDreams? Are you an employee? A paid or unpaid supporter? A friend of employees? - Or are you just an independent fan of censorship, performed by yrself as well as others, in an attitude counter to the spirit of Wikipedia? What furnishes your motives for censoring the info of CommonDreams' censorship, is the wonder here. Do tell, pls. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. 85*, that is not reliably sourced information. Comments on forums are never reliable sources. And I will tell you directly that not only am I not related to the company, I've never even heard of it. If you can find reliable sources that discuss the issue, then perhaps it could be included (though you have to follow WP:UNDUE and other policies). I recommend discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The deleted paragraph with quote from CommonDreams owner Craig Brown is most definitely "reliably sourced information", on CD itself, no less. If that paragraph and ref.'s not included, no other reference to CommonDreams should be, either - including then, presumably, the Wiki-entry itself. And it was "Mewulwe", not you, Qwyrxian, who were asked for full disclosure on relationship to CommonDreams. That's two cases of wilful miscomprehension on your part. Plus you're protecting vandalism with clear political bias. Not convincing. You're diminishing Wikipedia's credibility for factual rather than politically corrected info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.121.208 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, the easy part: I know you didn't ask me about my connection to CommonDreams--I was simply trying to head off what I imagined would be your next question. Second, you must not use the word "vandalism" in this way--that term has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia (See WP:VANDAL; basically, it means willfully trying to make WP worse in a dirsuptive way; disagreements about what is or is not reliable is never vandalism); misusing it can be considered a personal attack. Third, while the response from the owner is probably a reliable source, the original report (on notmytribe) is not. Thus, you can't include the criticisms (and of course it wouldn't make sense to include the owner's response without the original criticisms). Find a source that meets the reliable sources guideline, or the information cannot be included. Please understand, no one is censoring anything, no one is trying to cover up facts. All we're doing is requiring that you follow our policies and guidelines. We do not report everything that some blogger, forum poster, or other internet denizen has said about the subjects covered in the encyclopedia. We cover only things that are reliably sourced. Apologies if you don't like that, but it's how Wikipedia works. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda
I've thought the advice from the other editors, as to if I should take the numbering dispute to DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, taking to DRN would be a good choice, though technically it's Mewulwe's responsibility. Mewulwe, reverting on that article will clearly be edit warring. The consensus on the talk page is clearly and obviously in favor of numbering in the infobox, and you are the only one opposing. It doesn't matter that no one chose to actually enforce the talk page consensus until now; the key is that the consensus is clear and vocal. While it is possible for consensus to change, it is the responsibility of those opposed to the consensus to demonstrate it's changed (or follow dispute resolution to get it changed).
 * So let me be abundantly and completely clear, Mewulwe: further reverts from you will be considered edit warring, and may well result in me blocking you. I'm not WP:INVOLVED on this issue (I really don't care if there's a number there or not; I just care that there isn't edit warring and that consensus is enforced), and thus am free to take administrative actions necessary to prevent disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even aside from the fact that consensus is not supposed to be a vote of a majority just saying "I like it this way," would you tell me how many people you see behind the supposed consensus? Given that you claim not to be involved, I see only GoodDay insisting on the number. Others have only briefly and ambiguously commented. Mewulwe (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see every single editor on that talk page supporting the inclusion of the number except for you. While consensus is not a vote, consensus also is not unanimity. When numerous editors advance policy based arguments in support of a specific position, and only one opposes, that's good enough for WP:CONSENSUS, and if that one person attempts to force his/her own way, that's either edit warring or disruptive editing or tendentious editing, depending on how exactly that person does it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you aren't answering the question. When the total of involved people is 2, "everyone but you" is not a consensus. Mewulwe (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

your recent deletions of Lehner references
Hello. Please reverse your recent deletions of references to the scholarly work "China in European Encyclopaedias." It is an excellent study of how European encyclopedias portrayed China in the 19th century. Its inclusion in relevant Wikipedia articles is helpful in giving readers interpretive context. M2545 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't put it in any relevant context. A China-related study is not the proper source for the most basic info on these encyclopedias, which can be found anywhere and which that study - if indeed it provides that exact information - may well have taken from Wikipedia itself, the relevant articles being older than the study itself. Mewulwe (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

East Germany
Hi. I'm just  letting you  know that  I  have temporarily  reverted the edit  you  made here. This is because as far as I can see, there has been no  recent  discussion  for such  a change since Talk:East Germany/Archive 5, which  appeared to  be left  unresolved. Please note that I  have absolutely  no  personal  opinion  in  this content  issue, but I  think the best  solution  would be for the editors to  start  a new discussion aimed at  finally  reaching  a consensus. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic vs. Czechia
Hello Mewulwe. "it is explained elsewhere", you wrote. Where? The English term Czechia is not so rarely used. . --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Etymology section, and in the article Name of the Czech Republic. As far as Google, the numbers I get for "Czechia" are 0.8% those for "Czech Republic" - and only 0.2% in Google Books. Most of them can be classified as erroneous, i.e. people simply making analogies to "Slovakia" or to the equivalents of Czechia in other languages like the German "Tschechien" and therefore thinking it must be the regular English term. Mewulwe (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So you think that Cesko is Czech Republic? Our country needs a short name and Czechia is the only logical alternative like Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Austria.Helveticus96 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Czech Republic is the established English name. What the country needs is neither here nor there. Mewulwe (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Czech Republic is a political name ("republic" is not name, but denomination of concrete political system in the country), CZECHIA is an informal (geographic, short-form, one-worn, etc.) name. An informal name is politically neutral, therefore can be used in any connotation. Using only political name limits the country historically only to the period of the existence of actual political formation in the country (in this case since 1993 until now). The state with long history and the row of changes of political systems and also with many changes in denominations (the case of almost every European country) should denominate itself in historical context using informal name, which role cannot be ever substituted by political denomination and representatives of every European country are fully aware of it, excl.Czechs. Therefore the need of using an informal name also for the Czech state with history more than 1100 years old is comprehensible, logical and axiomatic. In addition (however obvious), using political name also in historical context leads to improper connotations (e.g. here somewhere "Charles IV was the king of the Czech Republic". Jan Blanický 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Blanicky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI
See Talk:Czech_Republic. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

A barnstar for you!

 * Just happened to have that on my watchlist. His birth date is not known. There is only the dubious one claimed on the letter he carried. Mewulwe (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Moussa Traoré, president for life
I have an Encyclopedia Britannica from the 1990s that says Mali's legislature removed limits on how much time a president can stay in office in 1985 ... I read that as making Traoré president for life. Am I missing something?
 * Term limits were removed in 1985. That is, the number of terms a person can serve. The length of a term remained fixed at 6 years (he was overthrown before the next election would have been due in 1991). Mewulwe (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Numbering of Presidents
Not you again? GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hossein Ghods-Nakhai
Hi User Mewulwe. You recently undo my edition on Hossein Ghods-Nakhai article. The edition was accurate and correct. This person was born in 1894 instead 1911 in Mazanderan province in Northern Iran and died in 1977 in Shiraz on Fras Province in Southern Iran. I use Reliable sources for this correction.World Cup 2010 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then cite them. You can't just remove a Citation Needed tag without providing citations, whether or not you change the information. Mewulwe (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh Foreign Minister revert
For some reason has been listed as foreign minister of Bangladesh- since Shahriar Alam (Politician) has been listed sin|ce January 2014 according to the article.
 * He's only state minister. Mewulwe (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently User talk:Ibrahim Husain Meraj when they first created the article listed him as foreign minister. That's the information I was going off of, but upon checking the ministry website I now see the oversight. My apologies. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Lalichii (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Meuwulwe, I am considering a block of your account due to this edit you made at Joyce Banda *while* the edit warring report was open. You can avoid this if you will agree to stop removing ordinal numbering from infoboxes until such time as you have got either (a) a centralized consensus, or (b) a local consensus on the specific article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly hold off while discussion is ongoing. Mewulwe (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've opened a discussion at Template:Infobox officeholder, concerning numbering of office holders in their infoboxes. TBH, I'd have less problems with your anti-numbering stance, if you'd apply it evenly. Removing the numbering at Joyce Banda, while leaving the numbering in place for her predecessors & successor, causes inconsistency. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be pointless when you're already reverting on Banda. Once you agree to give up on the numbers, they'll all get removed sooner or later. Mewulwe (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I may not have reverted at Banda if you had deleted the numberings of all the Malawi presidents infoboxes. If you want to be difficult, by creating inconsistencies among series of articles (like the Presidents of Malawi & Premiers of Burmuda), then you're going to get negative feedback from me & others. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Edhi DOB
Any comments Talk:Abdul_Sattar_Edhi? --Saqib (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Boris Skossyreff
My article #is# original research (with information from others) - and the references are as stated. There is also and various other sources. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, and putting it elsewhere on the Web and then linking to it doesn't make it better than applying it directly. This Andorran source doesn't say he died in 1989. Mewulwe (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a picture of his gravestone on the HF article (and it can be found elsewhere).

I have put a link against my previous comment on the article talk page - which may solve the issue of people adding the link on the actual page in good faith (and there are always going to be some cases like this, where there are valid arguments on both sides). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * From the historical evidence 'adventurer' is probably the best description of him if you wish to assign one. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit-War
I apologize if that edit-war got out of hand, that user you were arguing with happens to be my brother, he often watches the Current Events Portal, which he has frequently commented on several times in the past, and gets very, very patriotic and defensive if someone puts something negative about the United States. I don't know how he was able to infiltrate my account during the first edits he made, but I will have a talk with him about it later. I happened to come across his edits after noticing that the page that he was edit-warring was on my watchlist. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference
Pardon my ignorance, but can you tell me why a pre-2006 source is required for Sonia Gandhi's real name? Thanks. Numerounovedant  Talk  08:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that's when the name was first introduced into Wikipedia, and later sources must be assumed to have copied it from there (citogenesis). Mewulwe (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks Mewulwe. Numerounovedant   Talk  06:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

April 2018
We at Wikiproject Sri Lanka have a hard enough job updating and curating our relatively small list of articles with limited manpower without people starting POV edit wars over whether or not Sri Lankan governors merit counting. I will concede that a lot of the lists concerning the governors are not sourced entirely reliably, but I myself have only started editing these pages to update and standardize them quite recently, and I seem to be one of two editors trying to maintain these articles at the moment. The solution in the meantime isn't to try and start an edit war (which seems to be your thing, judging by this talk page) or arbitrarily remove material with snide edit summaries, but to try and bring this to someone's attention so we can fix the issue at hand. You'll find many wikiprojects don't appreciate people coming in from outside, removing material and then belittling their country all at the same time.- ක - (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.- also, "good lord" and "cut the crap" are neither helpful nor edit summaries. Please, just stop.
 * None of this makes sense. The notion of "coming into a Wikiproject from the outside" is absurd, anyone can edit any article without having to join a Wikiproject. I didn't belittle any country. It is a simple fact that Sri Lankan governors are not normally numbered - just like almost every other political position in the world with the notable exception of U.S. presidents. Originally only the latter and a few others had numbers, properly, in their infoboxes. A few people who didn't realize this special quality of an official or semi-official fixed numbering thought that, if U.S. presidents have these numbers, why shouldn't all other officeholders? And so they went and this insanity spread everywhere. It is OR, pure and simple, unless reliable, Wikipedia-independent (i.e. pre-Wikipedia) evidence can be shown that a certain political position is commonly associated with such numbers, according to an unambiguous underlying list and counting system. See Template:Infobox officeholder. Mewulwe (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "...anyone can edit any article without having to join a Wikiproject" Correct. "The notion of "coming into a Wikiproject from the outside" is absurd" Debatable, at best- people will not like people with no history editing articles on the wikiproject swooping in to make changes without even attempting to discuss it with- or even notify anyone, especially when it's a national-level wikiproject. As for belittling, the "no one is counting Sri Lankan provincial governors" edit summary can very, very easily be taken as a note of derision or condescension.
 * "It is a simple fact that Sri Lankan governors are not normally numbered" According to whom? Broadcast media here refer often to the numbering when reporting on the appointment of governors, prime ministers and especially presidents. I haven't noticed print media doing so for anything other than presidents and prime ministers, however, but I can't see why the numbering should be wiped out- it's a handy way for a casual reader to see where on the order of governors the individual is without having to go to a central list of governors or, god forbid, click through the links in the navboxes- given your classification of some sources as original research, I'm assuming you would have the numbering on those lists erased as well? That would be absurd, since the mere practice of counting governors from the title's inception isn't something that requires citations. Frankly, I can't see why you're obsessed over this counting issue, which I notice you've engaged in the past with users of other wikiprojects as well- numbering officials isn't the exclusive preserve of the US government. I don't see US presidents constantly being referred to as "The xxth president of the United States" in every news article or broadcast, so how exactly is this different from the rest of the world's officials? On what basis do you claim only the US presidents are numbered when the entire rest of the planet does so for their leaders in public media as well?
 * In the end, this seems to boil down to two things- a personal preference of yours to somehow limit infobox numbering of official positions to the US presidents, and a lack of citations. On the latter, I've already asked that you leave these up until I can sit down and find some proper sources for the lists. The former, well... I can't see the reasoning behind it.- ක - (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be referred to by number every time, but there has to be a consistent, established numbering system, and this is not common. Otherwise it is not "mere counting." For U.S. presidents, it is well established, for example, that Grover Cleveland is "22nd and 24th" president, which is an arbitrary decision to count non-consecutive terms separately but not consecutive terms. You don't have such an established counting system in most countries even for the heads of state, let alone provincial governors. If you read such numbers these days, it is because people mindlessly copy them from Wikipedia! See how many pre-Wikipedia references to "nth president of Sri Lanka" you can find. You can search on Google Books with an appropriate year range. I just tried and found NO such reference at all. Then do the same for "nth president of the United States" and you will see exactly how this is different. And, absolutely, these arbitrary numbers should be removed from the list articles too. They only give the misleading impression (1) that the list is unquestionably correct (which it often isn't) and (2) that (even assuming the list itself is correct) the specific numbering system is objectively without alternative (only true in some cases, especially in short lists, and even then this is bound to change sooner or later in the future) or established in common or official use (which it almost never is). This has nothing to do with a "personal preference." Mewulwe (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Until the practice is applied equitably to all of Wikipedia, I see no reason to follow the dictums of a single editor who has been warned by several others not to engage in this either. Moreover, you appear to be engaging in a ploy whereby you seem to imply any custom ultimately has its roots in the US- an attitude that is all too common online, and a topic I have no interest in debating with anyone, since it is a tedious one that will inevitable devolve into mindless shouting matches. I do find it puzzling as to why you would expect the same quality or volume of published material (online, no less!) from a developing nation as you do from a developed nation- the presence of references to numbering officials of a third world country not being on Google as a reason for enforcing some arbitrary policy is laughable at best.
 * Please leave our pages alone, thanks.- ක - (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. I don't care about the U.S., it is just a fact that this particular custom is almost exclusively a U.S. one. Talking about the "45th president of the U.S." is standard, talking about the "nth chancellor of Germany" or the "nth president of Sri Lanka" is not. And this matter has been discussed, and this is policy, as I linked above, not just "my dictum." The argument about relative volume of published material is nonsense, as you can happily make allowances for that; but there are plenty of published references to presidents of Sri Lanka and it doesn't help when the number of numbered references is still zero! And if you think that there is an actual practice that just hasn't made it into published material, then I'm afraid it can't be used, since we're operating on the principle of referencing things here. Finally, these aren't "your" pages, I edit any article I please, thanks. It seems to me that you mindlessly took over the numbering business because "it was there" and now you already invested enough time in it that you can't acknowledge it was all a waste, but that's how it is. Mewulwe (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what's ridiculous is your obsession over a simple act of counting, which you're calling for references for. Seriously, do you not see how absolutely nonsensical this is? There is no policy on Wikipedia to back up what is a personal preference- I'm sorry, but that's how it is. - ක - (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are evidently not capable of reading, absorbing, and reacting to arguments, as I explicitly explained how this is not a simple act of counting. You are also denying the policy I plainly cited above. Mewulwe (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Royalty articles
People read & write articles about members of deposed royal families because they care genealogically,regardless of what the republican governments of the various countries have to say on the matter.Take it up with the various project editors if you feel a need to advocate for the republics.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the titles. I don't mind the articles existing (although many of these persons are not notable for anything except their descent), but if a title is abolished then that's a fact whether one likes it or not. We don't generally use titles that are not widely recognized. Many of the people described here e.g. as "dukes" may not even consider themselves to "be" dukes. Mewulwe (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

8th Prime Minister
Hi, Mewulwe

Why are you ignoring the list?— Bukhari  (Talk!)   06:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the numbering there is nonsense. Mewulwe (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn’t understand you.— Bukhari  (Talk!)   14:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies for changing the order on some of the PM's pages. Why aren't we fixing the ordering on the list's page if it's nonsense? Spinarak (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bhutanese PMs are not numbered. Just like most PMs in the world. And yet idiots add artificial numbers to all of them here. Go ahead and remove the numbers from the list, but someone will just add them again. I just remove fake numbers where I happen to see them. Mewulwe (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Croatian PM Tihomir Orešković
Hello,

I am interested in why are you insisting on erasing the numbers beside the persons former political title? I checked all other Croatian PMs and presidents and they ALL have their respective numbers except one (I also checked the U.S. and Italian presidents/PMs just in case). I never heard of this rule you mentioned even though I'm a Croatian citizen.

Regards, Luke CroGamer 1 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Such numbers cannot be objective (uncertain underlying lists, different possibilities of counting). Only where a certain numbering is in wide unambiguous use, as in the case of U.S. presidents, should it be used in the infoboxes. Some editors don't get this and mindlessly add numbers where they don't belong. Mewulwe (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I just checked the official web page of the Croatian government and it explicitly states that former PM Tihomir Orešković was the 11th PM of Croatia. Use Google translate and check the last sentence on the page to verify my claims if you wish. I don't see any more obstructions for me to add this information on his article. I'm willing to add a reference on his wiki if you insist on one.


 * Regards, Luke CroGamer 1 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That in itself does not prove established use. I don't see any significant number of Wikipedia-independent references to "xth prime minister of Croatia" or "x. predsjednik Vlade Republike Hrvatske." Mewulwe (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The link I just provided is an official statement of the Croatian government. We (authors) can add anything if we find a legitimate reference and this certainly qualifies. Established use doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia's idea is to inform people and not to only repeat things already known. CroGamer 1 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not belong in the infobox just because one government page uses that numbering. It doesn't make it an objective fact that he "is" the 11th prime minister of Croatia, since that is inherently not an objective matter but one of arbitrary convention. Mewulwe (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So you are trying to say I can write this information in a subcategory but not in the infobox? If so then this is disturbing. And you are moving away from the main reason of why I came to your talk page in the first place. I've proven to you that the number 11 is Tihomir Orešković's correct number and I will repeat it again, Wikipedia's passion is to EXPAND the knowledge of humans and not to limit it (which are you trying to do). I agree that mentioning a persons number it's not widely used in my country but it isn't incorrect. Extra and above all correct information is always welcome. CroGamer 1 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You have proven nothing like that. You have shown one government page describing him with that number. As I just said, there is no objectively "correct number." He is only 11th if you count from 1990. But then, there were "prime ministers of Croatia" in the fascist regime in 1941-45 as well as within Yugoslavia. You may say he is objectively the 11th prime minister of the Republic of Croatia, but even that numbering is only clear because there have been no ambiguities so far (such as one person holding multiple non-consecutive terms who may be counted once or multiple times, acting/interim holders of the office who may be counted or not, rivalling claims to the post, etc.), but these are bound to arise in the future, making such numbering not viable in the long run, which is why it should not be started even in seemingly clear cases. You can use the number in the text, but not in a standardized infobox. Mewulwe (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Since we are unable to reach an agreement I wish to inform you that I will escalate this issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards CroGamer 1 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * == Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CroGamer 1 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for this mishap as I'm still learning the ropes on Wikipedia. Anyways, I would like to invite you to Talk:Tihomir Orešković talk page. Regards CroGamer 1 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Laurie Morgan article change
I am having difficulty understanding your change to Laurie Morgan, replacing the citation request that I just removed. The inline citation from the Guernsey Press includes his year of birth as 1930. Can you help me with this article? Perhaps the removal was not the best approach.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have 17 December. Mewulwe (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pithey
Do you remember the case of Jack William Pithey, on whose talk page you participated in a discussion some years ago? I've found a new source (of dubious value, but still). DS (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it. Interesting, may well be the true date, but can't be considered a reliable source as it is. Mewulwe (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles Michel full name
Hey there. Any thoughts why the three sources cited for Charles Michel's full name is WP:CIRCULAR?

I had citogenesis in mind as well, that's why I quoted three sources, spanning eight months, each of a different discipline: de Volkskrant, Dutch newspaper 11/2019; Daily Express, UK tabloid (may be shady) 7/2019; and a photograph caption (via Getty) 3/2019.

My rationale is that none of these sources are Wikipedia mirrors. The fact that they did not mention it came from Wikipedia means that the original authors are confident of its accuracy by their own research. Furthermore, the citation needed tag has been present long before the Volkskrant article was published -- no reasonable journalist would take that "as is" without independently verifying it.

Is it your opinion that only published sources before the 22:06, February 17, 2017 revision (where the full name was put in) are non-circular beyond doubt? --Nemoschool (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. He had been prime minister from 2014, why would there be no earlier sources than 2017? Note that they might have taken it from the Dutch Wikipedia, where there is no tag, or any other source which itself copied it from Wikipedia. They may just google and seeing some information "everywhere" presume it must be true. There is widespread ignorance about the extent to which information tends to spread once it has been on Wikipedia for a certain time, making it almost ineradicable even if demonstrably false. Mewulwe (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the explanation... (And I certainly didn't consider that it could be Dutch Wikipedia's fault!) Being PM then EuCo President, he is definitely high-profile enough for us to err on the side of caution.


 * I'll go ahead and make the following change: move citation needed to infobox, and remove his middle names from lead section, as it is done on French Wikipedia page, his native language. It would look better this way without a bold tag staring at you at the first line; plus search engines usually display crawled articles' first lines, so to contain widespread misinfo would be to remove it from lead outright as per WP:BLP. --Nemoschool (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Robert Abela birth town
Just a brief message to thank you for highlighting the discrepancies in the Robert Abela article, regarding his place of birth. Have removed your tag and replaced with a citation to substantiate. Very clearly stated, and not alluded to at all! Thanks for checking it out. Kilbosh talk 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Contesting the reversion
I'm working for Ethiopian Prime Minister chronological order. Although Fikre Sellassie is the first in newly formed Ethiopia, he is the sixth prime minister in general. Give your reason for your reversion. The Supermind (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is unsourced/OR. You can't derive new information from information you are surely just taking from Wikipedia itself. Almost all these numberings on Wikipedia lists of officeholders are arbitrary, and there's no telling if the lists are even correct. Mewulwe (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Attention
I have noted you have repeatedly been reverting edits without providing good reason in the edit summaries at List of heads of state of Panama. Please clarify your actions. Ed6767 (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reason was given the first time. I am reverting a vandal with changing IP who gives no reason for his repeated unsourced addition of Florencio Flores, who was not a political leader of Panama. Mewulwe (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Boris S
Hi Mewulwe. I hope all is well. I see that you removed some citations from the Boris Skossyreff article - the citiations that were added were different, and each precisely referenced the action. One example is:
 * In the now uncited '23:1' vote, the cited published book - El Rey de Andorra, contained the statement 'Nada de la votacion 23 a 1 de otros relatos'. This statement related. The other reference, from 'Secrets of the Seven Smallest States of Europe: Andorra, Liechtenstein ...' said 'Ribas convinced all but one of his fellow General council members to ...'

The same applies for the other citations :) Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I must note that the prior citations for that section were incorrect, but had been remedied. Thanks. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * El Rey de Andorra is a self-declared work of fiction. Secrets is hardly reliable; this 23-1 vote must indeed be a secret since it does not appear in any contemporary account. And in no way does this say anything about France announcing anything, let alone on a specific day. Mewulwe (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. The reference from 'Secrets of the Seven Smallest States of Europe: Andorra, Liechtenstein book does mention this however. I'll just re-add that. I'll also search for a better specific reference for the France quote and check with you here before posting. - Thanks. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mewulwe. I've removed the France material. Thanks. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Cease
Hi Mewulwe. I request that you immediately cease your non-constructive edits on the Boris Skossyreff page. The page is currently up for GA nomination, and it is not for you to destructively remove relevant & cited detail with relatively aggressive summaries. If you do not desist this destructive editing, I will launch a complaint with the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I kindly ask you to stop. Thank you. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By all means. Then your fraud will be exposed. Mewulwe (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. I noticed that you made several comments in your edit summaries on Boris Skossyreff that didn't seem very civil. For example. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Please discuss your concerns about sourcing on the article talk page and comment on the content, not the contributor. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Boris Skossyreff
I suggest that we start on a fresh page. Improving Wikipedia is what we're both here for, and I believe that a dispute will have no good outcome for either as it will simply serve to be a waste of time for us both. Time that we could spend on contributing to Wikipedia. I propose a couple of things:
 * We work collaboratively. Starting from the initial edit, we can work through each citation and ensure it fits (allowing us both to have a complete understanding of each other's reasoning, step by step)
 * We ensure that the page is the best it can be, with the most relevant information that would help improve the page.

I think this would save significant amounts of time, and would help ensure that Wikipedia keeps improving. Any thoughts? Thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to "work through" about blatantly bogus citations. Just stop adding those. Mewulwe (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We may disagree on what is a "bogus" citation. There are certain citations you have removed, along with text. Instead I suggest replacing the arcticle as it was before, and removing what you see to be a wrong citation with 'citation needed' instead of removing surrounding text. I am trying to be constructive here – I hope you appreciate that. Thanks. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you remove the most recent comment from the article talk page, I find it of the wrong tone in the light of the message above. Removing the entire section would be preferable. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need to restore unsourced claims, which are pretty clearly wrong in light of real sources. Mewulwe (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Boris Skossyreff. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By your own nonsensical logic, you just "attacked" me. Stop it. Mewulwe (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
― Tartan357  Talk 22:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Numbering consistency
You're so determined to be an irritant towards me, you even mistakenly undid one of your own edits. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Mike Hurst (politician), Mamady Doumbouya
Hi, are you aware of the edit warring policy, the three revert rule and the availability of Talk:Mike Hurst (politician) and Talk:Mamady Doumbouya for discussing content disputes? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since that person already did not engage with my edit summaries, there seems to be little chance for him to act more rationally on talk pages. He's free to make a case for his nonsensical additions of circular sources. Mewulwe (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Víctor Paz Estenssoro
I'm confused why your |edit summary says I have no source when I'm the one that added the source. And no, it wasn't taken from another Wikipedia page considering this source wasn't ued at the Estenssoro page or elsewhere. Please refer to WP:CIVIL before you start throwing around baseless accusations. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your source said nothing about an interruption in 1944. But the Estenssoro page did have those same dates. So if you didn't get it from Wikipedia, why not cite the source from which you did get it? Mewulwe (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

...
Please, see Category:Pretenders. Here are lots of pretenders, not only for Württemberg. Why you decided to remove for these two files, only because it's your decision? --Noel baran (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I'm sure these two aren't pretenders. Provide a source that these claim to "be" kings or even advocate a restoration of the monarchy. I can't speak about the entire category, presumably there are others wrongly presumed to be pretenders just because they are members of a former royal house who theoretically might have been monarchs if a monarchy had not been abolished. But a pretender is more than that, someone who positively claims to be rightful monarch. Mewulwe (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You maybe are sure, that they not publically claimed it, and you are right, that they are "pretenders just because they are members of a former royal house who theoretically might have been monarchs if a monarchy had not been abolished". Sometimes exist some different lines of pretenders (like in France). And if person never made any attempt to claim the throne (like Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia for Britain), this person not ceases to be a pretender.--Noel baran (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the definition of pretender. A pretender is one who makes a claim. A mere head of a former royal house is not a pretender, nor a "titular monarch." Mewulwe (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood, that we have differents poins of view for this term, but this, that is bothering me more, that in one moment somebody decide to remove something, that isn't which is not offensive or pointless, without any consensus, only because of own will or interpretation--Noel baran (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Jacob Nena
Was the citation not adequate? An edit summary wouldn't be a bad idea when you revert a good-faith-edit... MattSucci (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure wasn't. Where on earth does it say July 6? Mewulwe (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Falsifications and fact checking
Dear User, you are perfectly right on principles: because Internet didn’t exist then and because most Kiribati things are oral (and rarely written), you will not find easily the place of birth of Rota Onorio which is Arorae but in Cinderellas of the Empire of Barrie Macdonald (2001) or the more comprehensive essay of Michael Walsh (2020), A History of Kiribati: From the Earliest Times to the 40th Anniversary of the Republic. But any publication on Kiribati is always hard to find, even in good libraries, if you are not close to ANU, Canberra or nearby. Try just to consider that some info are good faith (the names of the siblings of the Tiito family were all exact even if we do not need to give each name). By the way, Koru was a good friend, only one year ahead of me. And even it is not a source, look at my User name. Arorae (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that it is WP:OR. Rota Onorio does not appear to be mentioned in Cinderellas of the Empire, otherwise cite it with page number. Mewulwe (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never said that it was OR. Exactly the opposite in fact. and please try to be less rude on your comments and not trying editwarring because you are like the other users, no more no less and whrn I read your Diff comments, I do not see a fair attitude.--Arorae (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well if it's not OR, then what is your source for the sibling relation? Mewulwe (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
Your recent editing history at Deaths in 2023 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Renewal6 (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

OR tag
With regard to this tag: I'm not sure I fully understand the issue. If you think that the word "ever" is misleading and OR, then you're welcome to remove it, if not, please explain where the issue is and how you think it should be addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is with the word "all" and the exact numbers given in the article, which surely are unsourced and only the result of a summation of individual cases found. Mewulwe (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, just remove the word "all" or at the very least, explain in tag itself what the exact issue is so that others can address it properly. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
 * , I cannot emphasise this enough – you need to read the edit summaries of others and take on board their comments. It is completely unacceptable to just ignore the comments and concerns of other users on here then blanket restore your edits (or do it through the back door by manually restoring information, which I note you also do on here). Rota Onorio – the book source is perfectly acceptable and it at very least confirms he was deceased by the point of its publication (2014). That's why it's important we leave it in. The Family Search source is not the best, in fact I agree it's weak, but in the absence of better sources and given that this individual is obscure and other sources will likely not come along, I strongly suggest retaining BOTH the information with the weak sources and using a "better source needed" tag. That would be the pragmatic approach. Simply wiping all of the sources but still retaining the information leaves the information totally unsourced, which is a worse outcome. I hope you read this and understand where I'm coming from.

Jkaharper (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The book is not readable on Google. If it is for you, quote the relevant sentence. And why do you reinstate the completely bogus sources for the birth place? The Who's Who plainly does not give a birth place, the other source mentions Arorae after his name but with no indication that that is a birth place as opposed to current residence or, most likely, parliamentary constituency. Mewulwe (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , you have once again engaged in edit warring on the Rota Onorio. This is the last time I will come here and offer a diplomatic way of resolving this, before I raise your conduct at the Administrator's noticeboard. I see you've been pulled up on edit warring from another user earlier this year, and have been accused of engaging in aggressive and offensive exchanges – if I bring a case on this, I will include these as examples of misconduct and push for action to be taken against your account. You call the book source by Brigham Young University "bogus" yet have no evidence of this. The other book source, "Last District Officer", loads perfectly fine to the relevant page on my browser (I suggest you sign into a Google account if you haven't already done so, or try loading it in another browser). The relevant quote is "Rota Onorio whose multitudinous commitments and failing health precluded him from most of our meetings. I was elected to act in his place and remained so for far too long after the poor fellow died." This is a 2014 publication, and it at least confirms that he was deceased by 2014 (year it was published). The Family Search bio, I am in partial agreement with – it's a weak source. However, WP:RS is guideline material, and in the absence of anything stronger (and let's face it, we're never going to get anything stronger), it gives us a specific date of death. I am going to attach a "better source needed" stamp, but scrubbing these sources altogether whilst keeping the information is not the solution as it violates pretty much all guidelines on sourcing and biographies. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Who's Who would of course be a valid source, except, as I told you, it does not list a specific birth place ("ONORIO, Rota. Educator and speaker, Kiribati House of Assembly, b. 26 October 1919, Kiribati, md., 3 sons, 1 daughter..."), so it is a bogus source here. Note also that the claimed birth place Arorae contradicts your other source, which has Nonouti, a different island. I see you removed it now. I'll accept your quote from the other source, I assume it's a case of Google behaving differently in different countries for copyright reasons (which I didn't expect for such a recent book though). We can agree on the current version then. Mewulwe (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Davit Ishkhanyan
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Davit Ishkhanyan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 119.56.108.152 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

your last edit IS A CLEAR VANDALISM, you edit existing quote NOT IN SYNC WITH reference link WITHIN THE SAME reference tag, disrupting existing reference tag 119.56.108.152 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making ridiculous accusations. I changed the quote along with the reference tag, not disrupting anything. Mewulwe (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Reversions in Carl, Duke of Württemberg
You had reverted my edition in Carl, Duke of Württemberg because, according to you: "he is neither duke nor (even titular) king". Well, he was Duke like the title of the article says and he was titular king like you could see in the article of her grandfather: Philipp Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg. If you think I'm right, please reverse the review. Sirslayercort (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The title is of course wrong, but the article seems move-protected. German titles were abolished in 1919 and his name is Carl Herzog von Württemberg. Translating the NAME "Herzog" is no more appropriate than to translate it in the name of Roman Herzog, or to speak of "Steffi Count". Mewulwe (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2023 (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. Mindaur (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Pollard"
Well spotted. This may in fact be an error - and, if so, it's regrettably been on Wikipedia long enough to have potentially affected sources that would otherwise be considered reliable. If I can't find a source that pre-dates 2003, I'll remove it. DS (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Vaughan Gething
You're clearly edit warring at Vaughan Gething against the consensus of a number of other editors, including a series of reverts over a couple of days. I suggest you discuss the issue on the Talk page. In my view it's patently absurd to describe sources such as the BBC and The Independent' as unreliable. Sionk (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's patently absurd to describe as patently absurd what has repeatedly been demonstrated, that those sources copy from Wikipedia. Nor can you explain why the date appears in such sources only after it was introduced into Wikipedia in 2019, even though the person has been notable since 2011. Mewulwe (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe Clancy birthplace
I'm really not joking. I know his family, he's from and was born in PA. Why was Indiana ever listed and what is your source? Xw1ng75 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The joke is if you think private knowledge is a valid source. Anyone could introduce false info by saying that. The listed birthplace may be unsourced too, in which case you may remove it. There needs to be a verifiable source. Mewulwe (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)