User talk:Vyselink

Your revert
I saw your revert here []. I'm curious to know if it is widely agreed is there additional sources that can be added? I think it would behoove us to at least have a source that helps outside the organization. On a personal note I was also raised as a Jehovah's Witness and while I don't think they would lie about it, I think in the spirit of verifying our writing that we should note it is based on internal reporting if we don't have reliable outside sources. I think the wording could have been better but it might be accurate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I neglected to see the beginning of the sentence stating the group reports. That makes much more sense and while outside sourcing would help I think that is nuetral presenting the source and where it came from. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here ya go. Put it in where you see fit and reword the section a bit if you'd like. I'll take a look when you're done but I'm sure it'll be fine.


 * "Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly deﬁned, and transparently calculated." Dr. Zoe Knox, Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011 pg 166


 * Vyselink (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I went to go and try and word it with the source. The more I looked I also checked the demographics situation and it is sourced very heavily so I think my point was more moot then I realized. I think more to the lead may make it more complicated when we can cover it in more detail and have the sources in a separate section. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Better to have a source and not need it than to need it and not have it. Always better to err on the side of RS's. Vyselink (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

William Marshall
I am doing too many things at once or I might have reviewed it a bit more. However, technically I don't see a conflict. Crouch's doubt is about WHICH of the figures was originally meant to be William, and not whether he was buried there. The temple was badly damaged, and then someone tried to guess which one it was. Older descriptions show that it was once easier to identify him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing other user's Talk

 * Vyselink, it wasn't me who changed an other's edit on the Revolutionary War's Talk page, it was user:Harper1234567 with this edit. My edit, which immediately followed can be viewed here which only involved one spelling correction. Somehow I got the alert that my edit was reverted, but again, the only edit on my part following Harper1234567's edit was a spelling correction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I got the alert because user:Harper1234567's page does not exist yet so the system gave the next user in line the alert. (?) Can only wonder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that the unregistered user did the most egregious editing, and thus why I reverted it back to your last edit. However, you DID edit Lord Cornwallis's use of "summarise" to "summarize", which is still inappropriate (see WP:TPO) because A) the talk page need not be a bastion of perfect spelling or grammar, and B) in this case it was not in fact a misspelling but simply a difference in American English v British English. In Great Britain (and those who use British English) "summarises" is how the word is spelled and Lord Cornwallis identifies on his page as a British Citizen.

It is an incredibly minor thing and one that isn't a big broo-ha-ha (so to speak) but unless it is to remove something inappropriate via the guidelines given above, editing another person's talk page post should never be done. It simply sets bad precedent. Vyselink (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Also, the reason you got the alert is the way I changed it (by reverting to a previous version of the page) erased your edit as well. Anyone who had made any edits would have received the message, it just happened to be only you and the other editor this time. Vyselink (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It was just proposed that the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) article be merged with the France in the American Revolutionary War article. Opinions are welcomed. — See Merge Proposal -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 20–20–20 club, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

See WP:CIRCULAR policy as to why a "Wikipage that contains the info" does not qualify as a reliable source. Also, the info you added does not satisfy the no original research requirement. The existing list already explains why amassing triples is difficult. It is not difficult because "only 112 times in MLB history has anyone hit over 20 triples in a season, with only 7 such seasons since 1950." That's the byproduct of it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses
I reverted the post per WP:NOTAFORUM, not necessarily WP:TPNO. I don't think it's a matter of being "unacceptable", but more of a "not what a talk page is for". Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Marshal
Hello Vyselink. I didn't really think that you were canvassing when you mentioned the Marshall and the Young King on my talk page ~ i just wanted to be open about it to forestall any such comments. I appreciate the notification, and your opening the discussion. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems. I wasn't taking it personally or anything. I responded just to cut off potential future accusations. Best! Vyselink (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)