User talk:Orphan Wiki/Archive 12

Hello
You are using an ancient version of Huggle! Please upgrade. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Upgraded Orphan Wiki  13:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What’s the problem?
It (1) was meant to be constructive.
 * and I still think it is.

It (2) was not a test edit.
 * and I want it back!

MBG02 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The first instance was a case of breaking up a perfectly fine paragraph of text up into a list, which didn't need to be done. Secondly, the talk page was left with just part of a new section, which thus looked messy and incomplete. I fully appreciate your intentions were good, but both edits damaged both article and talkpage. Orphan Wiki  13:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk page looks complete to me (on iPhone). Maybe the “==“ stuffs things up (for you): I added that because the references looked like they were part of my item. Why don’t you restore it and make it look the way you want? MBG02 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done already. That's why it looks complete. Orphan Wiki  11:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the message on my talk page
I have a question to ask you: Do you think a new article about this (Link 1link 2) could be created ?

--MatterScreech (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi MatterScreech, hope you're well. If you think there is enough information to warrant a new article being created, then you can give it a go yourself!


 * Firstly, I would highly recommend reading both Your first article (which includes a link to the Article Wizard, where you can start working on a proposed article as a draft) and also Article development, which explains the stages which form part of the creation of a decent article.


 * Always make sure the article is not written as an advert, but something you would expect to read in an encyclopedia you picked up off a book shelf. Orphan Wiki  13:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

 * Thank you Andrew! :) Orphan Wiki  10:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Puritans under King James
Greetings there. I wish you would please not revert things back on this article without asking. The article is clearly on the Puritans under King James. And I have given their views as well as the Anglican view when they differed. There was clearly no bias in the observation. I clearly state what the Puritans held. Would you like me to quote them on the subject? I appreciate that you are an avid wikipedia user and author, but you don't know the subject here at all. So please don't start a revision war. I will do my best to keep to historical observations and placing their views in the proper context, as I always do. There was nothing wrong with what I stated. Puritan27 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Puritan27Puritan27 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This was the edit which was flagged. "...universally recognized as the greatest playwright and literary author that has ever lived." Please refer to WP:NPOV. Orphan Wiki  21:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings. The additions that I have made to the article on the Puritans under King James is fairly common knowledge at the Doctor's level in history or theology. I think you can see the article now has a great deal more historical clarity and information than from before, whether you agree with the Puritans or not. I have also included in the edits the Anglican view and many aspects of King James own personal convictions, which only a very few historians like myself know. I hope to add citations in the near future, as I have time, from many of the original source documents as well as from a wide array of historical scholarship on the subject of the Puritans. I teach the subject at the Collegiate and Seminary level and am one of the leading Puritan scholars in the U.S. with a library on the subject larger than Berkeley and Stanford combined, where I received several undergraduate degrees. Thank you Puritan27 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Puritan27Puritan27 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This may be a response, at least in part, to the message I left . I'm not so much questioning the content as I am concerned about a basic tenet of scholarship in general and the encyclopedia in particular: citing sources to confirm that none of the conclusions are original research, nor copied from another source. The latter is unlikely in this case, but promising to hope to add citations in the near future is insufficient. This is addressed in WP:EXPERT; I've taught a long time in my field, and have in the past written extensively here, with the understanding that whatever I don't source is subject to removal. As an academic, Puritan27 would understand that, too, more surely than most. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:9D3F:6C9B:6798:2BB0 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings there. Is it your desire to improve the articles on wikipedia to benefit people? Or is it to control and even obfuscate them to hinder learning? As an historian and Puritan scholar it took me less than 3 hours to make these massive improvements to the article for the benefit of my students, an article that before my additions everyone considered a superficial piece of bad scholarship. I am 1 of approximately only 20-30 scholars in the world with such vast knowledge of the subject matter of the Puritans. The original article was simplistic, disjointed, and lacked any coherence. And worse, there was not a single Puritan author or theologian mentioned in the entire article. There were also occasional gross misrepresentations of historical facts. This is very common in wikipedia articles in both history and biography. How is it possible that you could have an article called "The Puritans under King James," and the article be completely devoid of any Puritan name or any significant representation of their views. This is a continuing problem that wikipedia has with many subjects, especially history. The changes that I made were a massive contribution to the article, and perfectly in keeping with wikipedia rules. The changes made to the article were designed as a lesson for my several classes in history on the subject, which both my Undergraduate and Masters level students greatly appreciated. Even their spouses and children are reading the article now, as well as the others I revised. They are even printing copies of the articles for their benefit - realizing sadly the possibility of wikipedia's editors sabotaging them because of political correctness. How sad is that? In 10 pages I have very simply put together the most clear historical outline on this subject ever written, as it gives a brief but all-encompassing overview of the period which includes hundreds of links to other wikipedia articles for further study and reference. How could you be against that??? Now people don't have to buy an expensive monograph to study the subject. Just look it up on wikipedia! I hope you can see the value of this and appreciate it. This is what wikipedia is designed for. As I said, in time, I will be glad to put a list of references and a bibliography; but if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that many of the references are easily obtained from the direct sources of the Puritans themselves, King James' own writings, or the several Anglican ministers involved. And yes, I have them all sitting here in my study, from King James entire works, all the Puritans listed in the article, as well as the Anglican's including Parker, Abbot, Whitgift, etc... This kind of control of articles by wikipedia's managing editors though is getting absurd and hindering real learning, and is one of the reasons why people have stopped supporting wikipedia. This happens way too often in these matters. Historical articles should be written by the historians who are the scholars of their subject, like myself. And to be honest, if I am hindered from making serious contributions to wikipedia articles any longer, by people who are ignorant of the subject, I will just have stop wasting my time, and stop supporting wikipedia altogether.
 * Puritan27 (talk)Puritan27Puritan27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Postscript: Puritan27 has now been blocked. Orphan Wiki  22:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

great easton : bearch123
Dear OrphanWiki, The edit I made to the great easton village page was a factual statement that there is a youth club in the village hall. This is neutral and factual. I hope that you will reinstate the addition to the relevant page online with immediate effect. Many thanks. bearch123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearch123 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This was your edit. "Open, friendly youth club" is not encyclopedic writing, nor is it neutral. It's more like advertising. Please refer to WP:NPOV. Thanks, Orphan Wiki  13:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Royce freeman
I added his stats for his last year for the Ducks is that not content Kman333 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This was your edit. Please refer to WP:NPOV. ...where in his last season he ran for an amazing 16 touchdowns and 1,475 yards... is not adhering to NPOV. Orphan Wiki  02:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits and Changes suggestion
Hello Orphan Wiki,

Thank you for correcting my edits. Sorry, was new to Wiki. This is in regards to Kim Tae Hee's profile on Wikipedia. Can we add the recent news about her like the one I tried to put earlier and the image as well is not that clear. Maybe we can add the most recent and clear photo of her.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhadey0216 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello there, I hope you're well. I will leave a proper welcome message on your talkpage, which will contain some helpful links for you to get started editing.


 * However, more specific to your question, there are two things I would like to suggest. You firstly wanted to state that the subject of the article was both an actress and a model. Wikipedia articles are made up of internal links, which take readers from one article to another. But editing them as one link can damage them, and mean they don't link up to another page at all anymore. So instead of editing this like you did as Actress / model, it would be better to create two separate internal links. Similar to this: Actress, model.


 * Secondly, if you wish to change the photograph to one for which you own the rights/have permission to use, and which is also of good quality, then what you need to do is simple. In the bit which looks like this: | image = 180329 셀큐얼리더스 행사 김태희.jpg, all you need to do is replace this bit: 180329 셀큐얼리더스 행사 김태희.jpg , with this: LG DIOS 정우성 & 김태희 광고사진 (02) 1.jpg , which is (I believe) your new image.


 * Give this a go anyway, and let me know if you have any questions. If I don't reply right away, it will be because I am busy, but you can also seek help at the teahouse or the help desk.


 * Best wishes, Orphan Wiki  21:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Vicky Jewson
Sorry, but if you think that this kind of edit should be reverted because "it did not appear constructive", I'd rather you work in other areas of Wikipedia--areas where BLPs aren't vandalized with antisemitic smears. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Right, firstly this message is abrupt and aggressive, and not the sort of introduction to an issue I would expect from an administrator such as yourself. Secondly, you have given me a diff which no longer exists. With the edit having been completely removed, I think it was a damn good thing I reverted it rather than left it on the article. The user has also been blocked.


 * I have been reverting vandalism on Wikipedia for a decade, so a swift, aggressive message like yours is seriously not the correct approach. Orphan Wiki  11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor was blocked by me, and I revdeleted the comment. I think that especially if you're a seasoned user you can do better than leave antisemitic comments in the history, without reporting it or calling on an administrator. Now if this strikes you as abrupt or somehow "aggressive", I could accompany it with a barnstar or some candy. Fact is, not all types of vandalism are the same, and something should have been done here a month ago. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, as an administrator, the way you are conducting this conversation really leaves a lot to be desired. The revert made on the article was assisted using an anti-vandalism tool called STiki, and the main focus of the tool is the diff. I obviously cannot see the content anymore, but I will have identified the edit as vandalism, and reverted accordingly. I most likely did not notice the edit summary, although I will admit the edit summaries are displayed below the diff in the tool. I will hold my hand up there if the edit summary, as you suggest, was antisemitic.


 * One of the things you seemed to have a gripe with in your initial message was not the edit summary, but rather the use of "it did not appear constructive". This is the default message #1 for reverting an edit as VANDALISM, (I repeat...VANDALISM) in the STiki tool. Flaming me for what is written in a default vandal tool message is really not appreciated.


 * I am reluctant to discuss the issue further with absolutely no way of seeing what the diff or the edit summary was. Just be aware that, as an admin, you're meant to set an example of how to conduct conversation constructively in order to build a better Wikipedia. You have not displayed that here. Orphan Wiki  16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The very edit was antisemitic. You should have seen that. Your patronizing tone masks only that you know you were wrong. You don't have to continue any discussion here or elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned; I just hope that next time when you see antisemitic edits (or racist, sexist edits) you will the right thing, which is to do more than just click on some button and let automation take care of the rest. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Calling me the patronising one here is pretty laughable. Orphan Wiki  16:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)