User talk:Stuntneare

Welcome
 Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Stuntneare! My name is FishandChipper. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or press the "Request Help" button at the bottom of this message. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

You can also have the people at Motto of the day create a motto for you to live by on Wikipedia at the Motto Shop.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or press the "Request Help" button below. Again, welcome! FishandChipper (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

FishandChipper (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To make it clear, the Russo-Ukrainian war and associated individuals fall under this ruling. I'd recommend that you start your editing career in a less controversial topic area. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Template:List of Asian capitals by region. 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. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Further to this, per WP:BRD and numerous other guidelines, please discuss the matter with the other editor rather than continually reverting them. Their views are not entirely without merit. Primefac (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wagner Group trimming
First, thank you for trimming down the citation of that one sentence in the lead of the Wagner Group article. I also stated a few times during the previous discussion and edit war that the sentence was overcited. If its ok with you I reintroduced just one source that's because the source in question was one of those that started the previous long edit war over the sentence and was also ultimately used in the end for some of the current wording in the sentence that was established as a compromise. Without it, some of the compromise wording in the sentence is unsourced then. If you still think that three sources are more than enough (now there are four), which I don't argue, than feel free to remove one of the other three. Personally I think the other three are repetitive. Cheers and thanks again! EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for the message. I agree there were excessive references to back the statement, and many were quite unneeded. I myself added one to the lead a few weeks ago. Due to the excessive sources, the lead was looking messy. I have removed two more sources, I agree they are redundant. The article itself is very huge. If removing a source is problematic for the article, then it should be added back. Stuntneare (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree all three sources beside the one I re-added were saying basically the same thing. I personally don't have a problem with leaving just two sources, the sentence is properly sourced in either case, but I don't know how the others who added the excess ones will react. We will see. EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

India
Please note WP:OWN on India. I will be reverting your edits of course, but by making a large edit all at once you have made my task harder. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which "large" edit of mine are you going to revert? All of them? I do not see any vandalization done by me on that article, maybe besides trimming some sources and updating some data, along with some minor wording changes in the first para of the lead. Stuntneare (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with vandalization. Sentences have been there for years. People have spent weeks on one sentence.  We simply can't presume to edit the lead of all things by traipsing into the article.  People have spent years on smaller articles which are summarized there.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification and the notice. I agree, I should have started a discussion on the talk page before altering the content, however didn't feel the need to do so as the changes were simple, updating, replacing sources etc. I did not have any bad intentions, and I am deeply sorry for the inconvenience caused, and hope to avoid such mistakes in the future. Cheers. Stuntneare (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I apologize in turn for sounding more aggressive than I should have and meant to. You are well-meaning and capable; that's obvious. But we also get a lot of POV edits. Less now than we used to be, but enough to keep us on our toes. Stylistic changes are difficult to address. Let's say five people have spent two weeks in crafting one sentence and they chose to begin a sentence by fronting with a participle clause. I come along a few years later and want a simple declarative with no subordinate clause. There are really no firm principles for preferring one or other. In such instances the old are generally kept.
 * There is a Featured article review coming up for India. Last time, it took me three (or maybe four) months to do it.  This time around, I'm guessing, it will take at least six.  And that is only the text. Then there will be months-long discussions on the images (on which everyone has an opinion or two or three) Anyway, what I meant to say more briefly was that keep your eyes and ears open, when the review is in half-decent state, please do come by and suggest improvements on the talk page. I mean this in earnest.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)