User talk:Telsho/Archives/2020/September

Telsho, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Telsho! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Singapore–United Kingdom relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 06:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

• News and notes: The high road and the low road

• In the media: Storytelling large and small

• Featured content: Going for the goal

• Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

• Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

• Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

• News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

• Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

• Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

• From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

• Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian Corruption Issue

Hello, I understand you reverted a edit, I just want to say that Russia belongs in the 60th place because it's not as corrupted as the PRC. I don't understand this, Russia does have corruption as well as every country but still, Russia is not as bad as China or North Korea and categorizing them is foolish and demeaning. Thank you and I hope you put Russia in a proper place in the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 02:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The rankings were not made by me but by the German non-governmental organization Transparency International. Telsho (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Gong Li

Hi, the Gong Li edit was not a mistake. Her character is credited as Xianniang in the credits of the film as opposed to Xian Lang. SamuelConners (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

regarding 767 update

Boeing ended the release of Model summary files before the July 2020 reports. All current updates must be collected from https://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries using by matching old and new numbers against each other. Feel free to check my numbers. I have updated 737,747,767,777 and 787 pages with orders and deliveries updates every month the last 24 months and this is the first time anyone have questioned the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygjar (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean to to this?

I noticed that you reverted a reversion of a vandal's edit here - was that unintentional? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it was, and I quickly corrected it. I should have taken another look. Telsho (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry, my bad, I thought that someone else had then reverted yours. No worries - it happens! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Bearded Vulture

I have found a few pdf links confirming a similar but not the same species was found in Pliocene deposits and that Bearded Vultures have only been found in Pleistocene deposits as of now. There is no evidence of Pliocene Gypaetus Barbatus fossils. I am not good at editing Wikipedia pages so please forgive any mistakes on my part. https://watermark.silverchair.com/auk0615.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAqIwggKeBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKPMIICiwIBADCCAoQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMArqypJUnaAzcICKfAgEQgIICVXNnLNSR6rzWK6RLUuwtp0SOr8qQTnljeTOcZ7PsFqWEu1tbryAtfcikZSyiD7DYG9F5K4Q7x-g4THMoQMa2a1tL6hO2WrFd3Rn4mCSM_8rHscGBtVEZkeKt7ZtfrKE8hIBErsGL_tYL0dd3WHgC9gaAvpd1bI9hMjXtAiSXS2IeFjHdkWJwPbVvNOEIy8B4UCr2OFR-pCncrkPgfJoxRTw461Wn8hgeuvmXx-6Auvxv71jFsn6SzvFK24osG_uByvWTsgePxdDoWRnHhzhSewk3FafBqZ0s3jRbQ6CVZNulgDOLW2frCLrAoKvK6NfAXaHJ-OdxvoiqHYF8X2Pwd9AIdpTZHZycQYWMg3YRf55BThHF2ReiXN6AqgyadwbJECnR2BNsXfdNKHgPCFVAC1V8ZMIfzt3ujM4NYDUJDvU8t8Enca6aZAGgGsP_odnir4KIzTUKaq-FvFBZFbGgvUvo-N3KAK9sciSahkWtiROHVRFvEB1NmYqG5R8eLdX1zf-YgZ6yycTRb7t94C1Nc6e8YSml7UQCffBzon4tWuvGp3a81wAH2qudE4kgxIJi5rAUUkxfcJwY-LsaeZ4O_b8zrF4QgWiGWNVRMNDCTB434k9ebjzLVV2i0W3R6Fc_oByM2mkQVS4Ym0_CyQXqgndlEr0zuPWxcA_15T7Yj--9bditmU7MpA38ga6HvcuOeCHXsGqiZWCxnI6_mNE2qPKDU2ddtPKcHB1j5dXrqR7P47QUV8teoka60wD86-GQCn0bTMvcytn1eeTapbsE7O_ytFrqdA

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/44FD3CB2A88B6A67047CBA57825330B9/S0959270912000500a.pdf/dietary_habits_in_the_endangered_bearded_vulture_gypaetus_barbatus_from_upper_pleistocene_to_modern_times_in_spain_a_paleobiological_conservation_perspective.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.95.130 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Harvey Milk was a pederast, documented by multiple ppl including shilts

You seem to accept shilts as a credible source unless it meets a certain narrative:

"He started a romantic relationship with Jack Galen McKinley and recruited him to work on conservative Republican Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. Their relationship was troubled. When McKinley first began his relationship with Milk in late 1964, McKinley was 16 years old."

This is widely known and documented that he had an inappropriate relationship with an underage boy, who under California law was considered a minor and was considered statutory rape. While Milk was 34 years old (do not need a citation for basic math 1964 - 1930) while McKinley was 16. This was not only illegal but highly immoral and is defined as pederasty. The fact that you keep trying to remove reality for some ideological reason is disgusting and quite disturbing. Will you remove Bill Cosby's sexual misconduct as well because he did some good things? Should your ideology trump actual history and factual information? I am concerned about Wikipedia and its recent trend of revising or neglecting actual history in order to drive a narrative that does not exist in reality. An edit also stating his age when he started a romantic relationship with a boy has also been removed. Why is that? You allow a statement with a citation and when using that same citation, for an equally viable statement proven by said citation, you delete said statement without a single legitimate reason. The current state of Wikipedia and the ideological based malfeasance on actual history and documenting that history is disgusting and anyone taking part in it should be ashamed of themselves. The definitions of words and truth matter, no amount of work will remove reality from the books of history in the age of the internet. Please, reevaluate your decisions and ask if your own personal opinions and ideologies are more important than the truth and factual realities that you may find inimical.

@Sawyermade: I don't doubt Harvey Milk probably has skeletons in his closet, but you have to provide reliable sources to support it or else other users will end up reverting you anyway, which has already happened. Your initial edit wasn't sourced and was written in a non-encyclopedic tone, violating WP:BLP policies. Telsho (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File deletion requests

I have declined all the CSD nominations you made under either WP:F9 or WP:F11. I all these cases a claim of fair use is made so deletion under F9/11 is inappropriate. If you think the images are incorrectly used under WP:NFCC you can either list them at WP:FFD or propose deletion under WP:F7 but in either case you will have to specify why each file fails to meet the NFCC. A blanket "fails NFCC" nomination would not be acceptable. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm cool with that. Telsho (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Panamanian isthmus

Why did you revert my edit to the Panamanian isthmus that removed the factually incorrect information that the isthmus is 2.8 billion years old before the notions of north and south America could even exist? it's even in the source for the claim "These independent lines of evidence converge upon a cohesive narrative of gradually emerging land and constricting seaways, with formation of the Isthmus of Panama sensu stricto around 2.8 Ma. The evidence used to support an older isthmus is inconclusive, and we caution against the uncritical acceptance of an isthmus before the Pliocene."

69.62.252.106 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Sansos

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Hello, I believe that you inadvertently restored a vandalized page over at Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Could you go over and review the change. Thanks DavidDelaune (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Telsho (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional Biographical Information

Hi Telsho. I have a question about deleting clarifying information under the guise that the information is not "constructive." If the Wikipedia page on someone is biographical in nature and I provided additional information to clarify the biographical information already provided (and that biographical information already provided without my clarification appears to imply one thing over another), isn't that addition constructive because of its clarifying nature? In the context of what I had provided, the biography implies the person has certain academic credentials (namely a specific degree), which is not correct. Thank you for any clarification you can provide. Gupta11195 (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Gupta11195

September 2020

Your understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES is absolutely incorrect. If you think that's disruptive, you've got to be cracking jokes! I'll leave that page since it seems to bother you, but even more egregious than your misapplication of MOS:JOBTITLES is the totally inconsistent way in which it is applied across this website. Vaze50 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2020 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, Telsho, you can't keep going like this. It is unsustainable. Major edits require major discussion. You also need to display better competence into Wikipedia norms and conventions as derived from its policies and guidelines. You are failing to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, especially the part which reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Please do better. Thank you in advance for your close attention and good luck. El_C 20:36, 25 September 2020 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, Telsho, you can't keep going like this. It is unsustainable. Major edits require major discussion. You also need to display better competence into Wikipedia norms and conventions as derived from its policies and guidelines. You are failing to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, especially the part which reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Please do better. Thank you in advance for your close attention and good luck. El_C 20:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I'll accept this brief block to cool off for a little bit. I understand that my actions might come off as unprofessional sometimes, and I'll work harder on it as well as cooperate further with other editors in the future, especially when they are willing to do the same back positively and in good faith. Thanks once again. Telsho (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You did this knowing full well that I couldn't respond in due time. Based on what I've observed from you during my entire time on Wikipedia, I actually do feel sorry for you, and I honestly wouldn't want to live a life like you are. I'm done specifically interacting with you. Telsho (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Email

Hi. Sorry, I just don't know you well enough to want to engage in private correspondence at this time. I'd rather all discussions be on-wiki and on the record. But perhaps you can find an admin who would be willing to email with you... Otherwise, please feel free to let me know if you have any concerns. Regards, El_C 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Singapore–United States relations

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Singapore–United States relations; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring at Singapore–United States relations

Hello Telsho. You'be been warned per the report at the noticeboard. If you revert the article again you are risking a block, unless you have obtained a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Your recent editing across many articles seems to be highly disputatious. (I have not looked into everything, but a lot of people are complaining about you). Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In the hope that it will do some good, I would say that if you talk to other people, both here and on article talk pages, rather than revert them you will be able to avoid a block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I try my best, but it's hard to communicate in good faith when some users (especially one) won't stop accusing me of being a sock. It's extremely frustrating. Telsho (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There are loads of editors who have tried to communicate with you in good faith, but, from what I have seen, you have refused to communicate back in the same spirit unless you are threatened with a block. You are the problem here, not everyone else, so you need to change your approach. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean saying that I'm the problem or at fault for everything is quite a hyperbole but let's just end it here. Telsho (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)