User talk:LjL/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Laffer curve discussion

There is a discussion on Talk:Laffer curve which you may be interested in as you commented on a similar discussion at Talk:Jude Wanniski. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: sorry but it seems I might need to stay out of it at this point because after I did the first recent revert on Laffer curve, someone went to some random unrelated articles that I had edited and reverted me, seemingly in retaliation; I filed a complaint at WP:ANI but since I have three "fans" and they all found at about that complaint and they all started pouring crap on me and nobody else really said anything, well... I'm pretty much helpless. Good luck with keeping the Laffer curve stuff sane, however. LjL (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for addressing the issue on the Budbrooke article. Whilst I now know that I did not go about it in the right way (felt powerless) it appears that we now have it protected so the person leaving unsourced material cannot edit it :-) Cls14 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cls14: Wikipedia has many eyes on it. Things can still go unnoticed, but sometimes the best route is to wait and see... in this case, your opponent actually went and shot themselves in the foot by filing a pretty dubious report. That sure drew some attention. LjL (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Actually I, ironically, feel a bit sorry for the editor who has been causing the hassle. They don't seem to be able to respond to anything with rationality or, more importantly to me, any form of politeness or decorum. Still, hopefully this is the end of it for me. It's the early hours of Saturday where I am and my film is about to finish so I am going to bed! Cls14 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cls14: Goodnight. Wikipedia can really test one's nerves. I really mean it. Take it easy. LjL (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick heads-up

I didn't read all of the links you posted at RSN so I don't know if you already took care of this yourself, but I'm going to err on the side of speed: You didn't out anyone, did you? That's a serious matter. You posted a link to a site that you say proved that some editors were who they said they were. WP:OUTING goes as follows: Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing and The fact that an editor either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for posting the results of "opposition research"

Again, I didn't think I should spend any time digging through your post to see if it really did count as outing. For all I know, these editors verified their accounts themselves and this is nothing, but I figured I'd err on the side of notifying you promptly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: thanks for your concern. I don't think I outed anyone who hadn't already made their identity abundantly clear on Wikipedia: without following too many links, if you only check the COI box at the top of Talk:English Democrats, that should show how the people involved have identified themselves as English Democrats party spokesmen (I did compile that COI box myself, but I used material that had been posted on Wikipedia). Note also that in two out of the three of them, their user names correspond to their real names as they identify themselves as within the party (which is how other editors had reached the conclusion on WP:ANI that they were party members in a COI, aside from being engaged in legal threats). LjL (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't aware

In regard to this, I wasn't aware of the 30 day/active policy per MOS. Thanks for helping me learn something new. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: it's not actually MOS, but a help page. Which technically makes it a less binding rule, I guess. But I honestly doubt you'd find anyone backing archival of something that's just a few days old. You should archive threads more conservatively: not the entire page, but only the actually old threads that are unlikely to be resurrected. LjL (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I will remember that for next time. Thanks again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Bonewah (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bonewah: that honestly didn't mean that you should have felt free to revert again, though, whether or not this further revert technically violates 3RR... keep in mind WP:Edit warring is not considered acceptable behavior whether or not 3RR is violated (although of course, that goes for both parties). LjL (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your comment elsewhere

Regarding your comment at the article's talk page, I had been having thoughts along the same line, and in fact you might find this worth a look. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, actually I see you've already found it. That was good sleuthing. The case seems pretty clear cut - and that page should help you deal with any future incidents. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: yes, thanks. I only saw your SPI case after commenting (because I was pondering filing a similar SPI myself). FYI I also AFD'd the List of 3D cities in Google Earth‎ spinout, which someone had PROD'd before. LjL (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

They are all blocked now. That was fast. I see the checkuser found one I hadn't been aware of. Since their style and actions are so recognizable, you will know what to do if they surface again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: and the previously-unspotted one has been editing a Google Street View article I was unaware of. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE LjL (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not any more they aren't! 0;-D I see that those are not just blocks, they are checkuser blocks - meaning they can't be undone by an admin who isn't also a checkuser. Not that anyone would, but it's additional finality. Unfortunately that won't stop them from creating new ones. Have fun with that. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Links for good audio stories removed

Hi,

I am writing you this personal message because you have removed by addition to article for hindi language and my links and useful information which i wanted to share with people. I came across some very nice inspirational heart touching audio stories in hindi by many famous hindi writers like munshi premchand, harishankar parsai and even this website has taken effort to translated famous steve jobs speech also in hindi. In this digital age , where it is difficult to find good books, this website has covered almost more then 100 plus good classic stories, inspirational speeches , poems from writers in hindi.So i believe my addition was 100% relevant and useful for people. Website covers all variety of audio stories so they have adult section also , i guess the reason why which you have removed the link, but amazon also sell adult products and good products also, it depends on person what they want to buy from amazon. Stories are also of all type, http://www.boltikahani.com has audio and video content for everyone and i loved this website specially the classic audio stories section and stories are excellent.they use pure form of hindi in stories which is excellent for people to listen.if you understand hindi, check links below for some of the stories which i liked. 45 Minutes(heart touching story)-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qPLSeHpM9Y short social film on menstruation myths in india with very good message- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-zuzYZ7E_I poetry on mother- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-JwOToILz8 barber se billionaire(inspirational ) -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcRM-8B9asU love story- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiiZ5qHq_Tw I am not a paid member on this website and don't have interest in accessing adult section,i am not interested in adult products but i can choose as grown up what i like to listen and people should listen to these good stories.I choose on amazon or any product selling website what i like to buy, they sell all varieties and all products. I have never seen such effort from any website to make so many good stories in audio form and keep pure form of hindi alive.

Khaamri khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaamri khan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The presence of "adult stories" has nothing to do with the reason for the removal. External links on Wikipedia should be very carefully selected to be directly relevant to the article's subject; the subject is Hindi languages, not stories in Hindi. Links about Hindi linguistics may be useful, but audiobooks are just unrelated WP:SPAM. I think most editors would agree with me. Sorry. LjL (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

ICat Master

Maybe you should've retaliated by redirecting ICat Master's page to sock! It may turn out to be accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly looks accurate based on the topic of contributions. LjL (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pandeism

I'd meant to respond to you in the discussion, but didn't get around to it. As a Pandeist, I do not believe anybody is "partly God" but instead that all things are partof our Creator. And indeed this includes Hillary Clinton -- but no more or less so than anybody else. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar on Millennials

There is a talk page discussion pertaining to your edit there. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2148:C4CF:FD5F:E50 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't worry, I keep an eye on talk pages of articles I edit. I won't mention it there, by the way, but it's spelled "grammar"... ;-) LjL (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I didn't know that. I usually just use spell check. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2148:C4CF:FD5F:E50 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

About Popcorn Time ! last edit

Hello!

Why you re-edit that part of the Popcorn Time! article? Sebastian was just a decoy. You said is uncredited: proof ->

http://uk.businessinsider.com/popcorn-time-creator-federico-abad-reveals-his-identity-2015-9 http://www.dn.no/magasinet/2015/09/07/1606/Popcorn-Time/inside-popcorn-time--the-worlds-fastest-growing-piracy-site http://venturebeat.com/2015/09/09/creator-of-popcorn-time-goes-public-with-his-identity/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/09/popcorn-time-creator-revealed/

if i can help with something to make this article better just tell me I would love to help.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.164.227 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry for my english :D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.164.227 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@201.231.164.227: when you have good sources to prove a fact, you should include them (or at least the best ones) in the article. Do not link to the person's Twitter account: just state his name, and add references. The simplest way to add references is to use the visual editor ("edit" instead of "edit source"), and click on Cite. Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: the basics has more info. LjL (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

New Popcorn time website

Hello,

I am contacting you directly to give you more accurate reference about the new website of Popcorn Time .io https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-hunted-popcorn-time-makes-surprise-comeback-160217/ http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/02/17/the-original-popcorn-time-is-back-from-the-dead-but-nobody-knows-whos-running-it/

I hope you can help

Thank you again for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorntimetv (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Popcorntimetv: Hi. It is definitely inappropriate to state that the "official Popcorn Time successor" is this one, because one of the very sources you just cited explicitly states that "nobody seems to know who is behind the updated app" and that "the original team [...] claimed to have nothing to do with the revived app" and even that "It’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that the MPAA could be trying to use the app as a honeypot to track movie pirates.".

So in fact, signs point to this being all but an official successor. All that TorrentFreak claims, too, is that the original GitHub now points to the popcorntime.sh site (which again implies nothing). LjL (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, Torrentfreak not knowing who the developers are (since they chose to stay anon) doesn't imply a negative, either. "Evidence of absence" and all that stuff. Since other third party references (separate from the new website) state that it is the successor (the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc), then we can use those as a reference and consider it true. Those sources should be trustworthy for this case, as because if said project was another fork and not a successor, then these sources would say so, and be third party to the fork. If the popcorntime.sh website was the primary source that it is the successor to popcorntime.io, then the popcorntime.io statuspage would be a secondary source testifying this, and wikipedia is a tietary source.

Personally, I think the new website is run by a subset of the original developers, who are staying anonymous for obvious legal reasons (they don't want to go to jail). (This makes sense, since the old popcorntime.io app automatically updates to popcorntime.sh, which requires an encryption key that only the original developers would know.) However, it doesn't matter who they are- the developers could have handed the code off to an entirely new group, and it would still be considered the successor project. When Richard Stallman stepped down from coding GNU programs, having a new programmer code it doesn't mean that it's a different project. Hell, even if the MPAA was running this new project (which is perceivably false, since the MPAA would promptly be sued to death or people would claim entrapment), it wouldn't matter. Teemome (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Teemome: could we please keep this on Talk:Popcorn Time as I've asked just below? I disagree with pretty much everything you said, for various reasons, but I'd rather not have to repeat them for every editor who may come up with the same arguments. LjL (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I've pasted the above here since it's relevant to all article editors, please reply there in the future. LjL (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me

Thank you for correcting me. I do have a question for you though... I need help getting my Wikipedia Page set up. May you help me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellbot1 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cellbot1: what do you specifically need help with? I have found that the visual editor is a surprisingly good tool for easier Wikipedia editing. Even though I've edited here for many years, I now use it in some circumstances just because it's so handy. LjL (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Alla fine la verità verrà fuga

Che motivo assurdo per ripristinare un collegamento perfettamente ragionevole . Utente Ramblingman ha perfettamente ragione quando dice che "la notizia" puzza davvero . Già nel wikipedia italiani abbiamo molto migliori standard per "nelle notizie" morti . 217.38.121.115 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Italian isn't even plausible as a native's, even though you speak about the Italian Wikipedia as "ours". At any rate, this is the English Wikipedia, so if you want to interact with me, please speak English. I find it offensive that you would post something in Italian that most people on WP:ITN/C wouldn't understand even though your other edits show that you can understand and use English. LjL (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing Microsoft Office information

Hi LjL,

my user name is TMR_66. I would like to update and correct the Microsoft Office articles to list the correct list of languages Microsoft Office is available into. I work for Microsoft Office, and we have discussed this subject, and believe that this information will be beneficial to our worldwide users.

Thank you, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMR 66 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TMR 66. I had only wanted to inform you that since you said you work for Microsoft and you edited Microsoft Office, that may mean you have a conflict of interest according to the Wikipedia definition. Since editors with a conflict of interest are asked to follow certain best practices on Wikipedia, I strongly encourage you to read the links I've sent you about it before editing further on Microsoft-related topics. LjL (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing

It's not because of that, it's because there's misspellings. M briglia05 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Radical Islamist

Hey that title ought to have the NSA checking you out so beware. You are indeed correct I should have been more specific. So why di you not just correct it? Fix it if you know it could be a better link but the disambiguation page also works and allows the reader to chose which path they want to follow. Anyone who places terrorist bombs, IEDS and then runs around killing people in the name of Allah is a Radical Islamist More NSA trigger words. 172.58.137.140 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@172.58.137.140: well, even if the NSA may believe the contrary, I don't really know the exact difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic extremism, or even Militant Islam (all terms used on the disambiguation page), nor do I know which one you meant to use; if the article clearly described which one applies in the body (the WP:LEAD itself doesn't need to have citation, but every statement it makes must be verified in the body), I could perhaps guess, but I can't, so for now it's best to just keep the WP:STATUSQUO while this is being discussed on the talk page. LjL (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"European migrant crisis" under discussion at WP:ITNC

You contributed edits to the "European migrant crisis" page. I invite you to the removal proposal discussion at WP:in the news/Candidates. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning proposal and straw poll

This is to make you aware of this discussion regarding the "royal family" content dispute at Peyton Manning, where you recently edited or commented on the talk page. Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome. Tracescoops (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Generation Z

Could you weight in on the latest edits and warn the IP who isn't listening? Thanks.2606:6000:610A:9000:3CBB:2189:2E9F:58CC (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, could you also return this lede sentence (below) because now the article is locked. This sentence was discussed on talk over a long period of time and consensus was reached. It's a more accurate description of our sources. The last reverting editor has apparently been reverting the dates over time which can also be edit warring. The lede was as follows:

"Generation Z (also iGen, Post-Millennials, Centennials or Plurals) are the cohort of people born after the Millennials. The generation is generally defined with birth years ranging from the mid or late 1990s through the 2010s or from the early 2000s to around 2025". 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Be proper and make a protected edit request on the talk page. I don't want to edit on (private) demand. I don't think the difference between "mid" and "late" is crucial, either. LjL (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We reached a consensus on the "mid or late" language. That's the language that was agreed on. Mid is really more of an extreme starting point and most sources are not using it. We are discusing the starting birth dates so it's okay to say "mid or late".

Also, why do I need to formally request that the lede that's been there since Dec. 2015 is returned because the article got locked and an opportunistic editor changed it after it was locked to the pubic? Could you just return it? You have admin rights correct? I appreciate the process but we don't need to relitigate it and waste more time. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no admin rights. I'm just an editor and I haven't taken part in the consensus-reaching and agreement about "mid or late". You don't "need" to formally request anything, you could make an informal request on the talk page too, but I don't "need" to make edits when I don't feel 101% comfortable with making them, either. Just because the article is locked in a way that allows me to edit it doesn't give me an obligation to. LjL (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I was under the impression you are an admin. Never mind. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delta Edit

Maybe I'm wrong, but the unicode name of Ὗ ( U+1F5F ) is "GREEK CAPITAL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA AND PERISPOMENI", according to page 4 of the Greek Extended chart. As far as I can tell, "MODIFIER LETTER SMALL DELTA" refers to U+1DF5. You know far more than me about this kind of stuff so sorry if I've got it wrong - I just wondered why the names/characters on the wiki page doesn't seem to match with the unicode charts.
82.44.98.35 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@82.44.98.35: no, you're right - it's just that when i saw content in a page called "Delta" turned into "Upsilon with stuff", I instinctively considered it a prank. I withdrew my warning from your user talk page; however, I didn't undo my revert on the actual Delta (letter) article because I'm still not sure what the best route would be for that, since really, someone reading an article about Delta and seeing a table with mostly variants of Delta and then a random-seeming Upsilon would go "wut", and rightly so. Perhaps it would be best to just remove that table entry entirely. LjL (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

For your efforts

		The Special Barnstar
		Hello LjL. Your post here is a perfect example of what Wikipedia is about. Whether that editor sees it or not I want you to know that I appreciate the time you took to explain things. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Aw thank you, appreciated. That report caused me some distress as I managed to get some random slack from an editor who likes to annoy me... it wasn't altogether easy to stay composed. LjL (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you willing to work with me?

I understand it can seem scary when someone comes in and starts to dramatically edit pages that you have a vested interest in, but I think at heart we have the same goals in mind. Would you be willing to work with me to find some good sources about ESI? I think there might be some excellent news stories out there that can be used, for example. jps (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I don't have a "vested interest" in ESI or related articles, but I have an interest in Wikipedia being edited according to policies and common sense, with an attention to collaboration among all good-faith editors instead of arguments from authority such as "I am an expert". That's the attitude I do not want to see. Additionally, as you have probably guessed, I found out that you've been trying to evict a lot of ESI-related stuff by stumbling upon this AfD, and as I've explained there, that's just the wrong way to go about trying to fix stuff that you consider badly sourced. The topic of the article is patently notable and encyclopedic as far as I can see; if you disagree with its sourcing, you go and try to fix it (including gaining WP:CONSENSUS at places like the WP:RSN), you don't try to have the article deleted wholesale even though it's an encyclopedic topic - and as you can see, it's backfiring. LjL (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There are different philosophies at Wikipedia, as you might imagine. WP:TNT is one of them. I don't think my work is "backfiring" as you put it, but there needs to be some balance in the way things are working. If you want to help, please do, but standing in the way of encyclopedia editing in the name of deference to WP:POLICY feels kinda WP:POINTy in light of things like WP:IAR. jps (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TNT is an essay that's definitely not policy, and WP:IAR is something that when it needs to be explicitly invoked, it usually means it's being used improperly. Given you have been admin-warned about your edit warring and related issues, I think if you're serious about "extending an olive brand", you really shouldn't accuse me of being WP:POINTy when I'm just trying to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get edited in a WP:RECKLESS manner. Policy is important, and so is consensus, especially when it comes to massively deleting content without agreement. LjL (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Music information retrieval

Dear LjL,

I would like to discuss with you about the wikipedia page "Music information retrieval" (MIR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_information_retrieval). First of all, I have to admit that I am new to Wikipedia and therefore may not be aware of certain mechanisms and rules. Anyway, I will try my best to contribute with useful articles in the area of music information retrieval. One first goal is to improve the page on "Music information retrieval". It is not that I think that the old page is entirely bad. However, discussing with other people from our community (ISMIR), we have the feelding that the page needs to be structured in a better way and that the page should reflect the most important topics. This is the reason why I started with a list of topics that is representative for ISMIR. Starting from that, I wanted to ask the community (researchers/colleagues from ISMIR), to successively contribute with written texts along this new structure. Now, just extending the given page may not resolve the issue that we have with the MIR page. What would be your suggestion to improve the page and its structure? Of course, it is not meaningful to "toggle" between two versions, and I really want to improve the page to the best of my knowledge. I am looking forward to your suggestions.Meinard.mueller (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meinard.mueller. First off, Wikipedia requires WP:Verifiability, which is normally implemented in terms of citing WP:Reliable sources from within articles. Now, neither "your" version nor "mine" (i.e. the WP:Status quo) come with a lot of sources: in fact, the content in question is mostly unsourced. So I agree that toggling back and forth is of little use.

At the same time, there is no obligation to delete all unsourced content necessarily. So why do I think the original article should be kept for now? Because it consisted mainly of WP:Prose which could be informative to the general reader (the layman, the public reading Wikipedia, not just your organization: it's a general encyclopedia), describing what the various Music information retrieval systems and methods were. "Your" version, instead, was a list of bullet points that looks like an outline, a draft of what the article may become in the future, but seems quite useless as an actual encyclopedia article for the time being.

So, what do I propose? It is possible on Wikipedia to create drafts by starting pages with the "Draft:" prefix, or by simply making sub-pages of your own user page, where you can generally (though not universally) rest assured that other people won't touch them without your approval. One your draft reaches a stage where it's actually a useful encyclopedia article (ideally with prose and references), it can replace the existing one.

But in the meanwhile, why deprive the reader of some contentful paragraph that may mean something to them? LjL (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi LjL. Many thanks for your constructive suggestions. So, I will proceed as you suggested. I have created a draft page "Draft:Music information retrieval", which I will discuss and expand with my colleagues. Before replacing the old MIR page, I may contact you again - or we will have another round of toggles :-) Many thanks again. Meinard.mueller (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meinard.mueller: contacting me will be welcomed, but as I am not the sole keeper of the article either, I think the best route may be to make the article's talk page aware of what's going on (either now, so they can contribute to the draft, or once the draft is in a good shape; that's up to you and I could understand going for the latter). If the new article is going to be better than the old, and people are "in the loop" as to why it's being replaced as a whole, chances of problems will be much lower. LjL (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Putin's wealth and residences

Hi, LjL. As a matter of fact I gave a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. The content I removed was recently added by an editor and consists mainly of unsubstantiated accusations against Putin. The allegations may be true, but in their present formulation they look like unfounded and politicaly motivated rumours. I strongly believe that any allegation against a living person should be supported by incontrovertible and verifiable evidence. Therefore I felt that the BLP policy gave me the right to remove the content. If I was wrong, have the kindness to explain me why. Cheers! Ardhanarishvara (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I'm not sure on the right procedures or if I'm necessary in the discussion. Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axmendez (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Axmendez: no need to worry overly much. To put it simply, what you need to do is: only discuss on the talk pages without actually editing the actual articles involving your own work; do not "out" people by telling Wikipedia about their real-life identity even if you know it; ideally, put a statement on your user page at User:Axmendez telling that you may have a conflict of interest with respect to ESI and/or HEC-related articles. Once this is over with, you don't need to shy away from the discussion. LjL (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

jps

I presume you know jps' history? Formerly ScienceApologist, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist for example. I am generally on the same side of content disputes around fringe science, but am aware of his past and treat disputes involving him with some caution. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: I do not really know his history, but I did notice that he has had several usernames and that even his current username's block history is extensive. I can also share his concern for things being peer-reviewed and stuff (though not the way he's been going about it), but especially since ANEW-reporting him and then seeing these ANI threads, it's looking more and more like manipulative behavior to me. See also this very page. LjL (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup. It's a worry because of the limited number of people defending a large number of articles against cranks. He is one of them, and past experience shows that he's his own worst enemy. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism

The edit I made to W before wasn't meant to be vandalism. I thought because it said "uu" so I changed it to "vv" because that looks closer to a W. So it wasn't vandalism, it was a good faith edit. I hope you understand. 100.2.216.239 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@100.2.216.239: uhm, I'm confused. It didn't say "uu"; before your edit, it said The sounds /w/ (spelled ⟨V⟩) and /b/ and you changed the single "V" into "vv". In Latin, the sound in question was simply spelled "V", so the text was correct. Anyway, I'll remove the warning from your talk page and note it was probably a good-faith edit. Cheers. LjL (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monaco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ligurian language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

More gems

You might wanna check these "gems" as well. [1]-[2]-[3]. Just the tip of the iceberg. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Word order, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Braces. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello, since you have some experience with the similar situation from Serbs of Croatia article, could I ask of you to write your opinion on the following question(s): "Are secondary sources which use primary sources as a reference more valuable than secondary sources which provide just a statement "Something is X"? What should be done if all source on the same matter provide nothing more than statements not founded in reliable primary sources? Can Wikipedia make a decision that one group of sources are more valuable than the other based solely on the quantity, something that scientific and logical approach does not approve? How to establish that quantity? And more extremely, can Wikipedia then declare one group of sources not only to be more valuable that the other group, but to be entirely correct and another group to be entirely incorrect and completely leave them out of article?"

The Serbs of Croatia article had the similar problem. Only one secondary source had the reference to the primary source and there was at least a dozen or two sources which claimed a different position however none of them had a single reference to the primary source.

89.164.248.53 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Are secondary sources which use primary sources as a reference more valuable than secondary sources which provide just a statement "Something is X"? Per policy, secondary sources rely on primary sources to make their claims (although they're allowed to interpret and analyze them). That doesn't necessarily mean they must pedantically reference a primary source for every statement they make, like Wikipedia does, but it does mean that a secondary source whose primary sources are very unclear may have less standing.
• What should be done if all source on the same matter provide nothing more than statements not founded in reliable primary sources? In the same policy I cited above, there is a note that says that the University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event". This doesn't tell us that every statement from primary sources must be directly "founded in reliable primary sources" (and while Wikipedia uses reliable sources, that standard doesn't automatically apply in the same way to the primary sources uses by secondary sources, although the reliability of secondary sources can be assessed partly by the stature of the primary sources they use, and whether they indicate them clearly). You can have secondary sources make statement based on indirect knowledge of an event even if they don't say anything that you can read precisely as-is in a primary sources. They are acceptable.
• Can Wikipedia make a decision that one group of sources are more valuable than the other based solely on the quantity, something that scientific and logical approach does not approve? Not solely based on quantity. It is possible that all sources making a claim are just basing it on each other, and in that case, the "quantity" becomes completely bogus. Sometimes, many news article echo the same bit of news, but then it turns out it all comes from the same mistaken source... which is often Wikipedia, ironically. At the same time, quantity shouldn't be discounted completely. This is similar to how Wikipedia polls are not votes but overwhelmingness of opinions does matter.
• How to establish that quantity? There is no set number, and as I said, it's influenced by other factors. Chances are there would be a discussion, then a straw poll, then someone closing the poll based on whether there seems to be consensus that the quality and quantity is sufficient.
• And more extremely, can Wikipedia then declare one group of sources not only to be more valuable that the other group, but to be entirely correct and another group to be entirely incorrect and completely leave them out of article? Yes, but that is something that would almost unavoidably be decided at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard after a lengthy discussion, and quite possibly an RfC.

The Serbs of Croatia article also had various versions of the primary sources (the Constitution) making it unclear which year's version we were discussing, and in addition, since Wikipedia does not disallow using primary sources directly for clearly what they directly state, there could be a case that despite secondary analyses, the Constitution simply said one clearly spelled-out thing. LjL (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. The reason I had asked you is this discussion. That topic is in a mess for years and I'm trying to put some order to it. If you could paste your opinion there, I think that might be of help, since no one had tackled that question yet. 89.164.181.8 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to link to this section (with a permalink maybe to avoid archival issues)! LjL (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this is a banned user evading their block. They will argue with you for years if you let them. HighInBC 20:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, HighinBC. I've given a point-by-point answer without considering the actual issue involved, though, and if my take is useful to the parties discussing this (whatever it is), all the better. I don't think I have any further input. LjL (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

About the latest Popcorn Time's edit battle

Hi LjL,
I wanted to drew your attention that despite your decision to remove completly the website entry at the Popcorn Time page and put it under semi-protection, the `.sh` domain is still present as the official site (check for yourself: Popcorn Time.)
You also decided to block my username `Fcxxhlla` from using Wikipedia and I wanted also to ask you to unblock me from Wikipedia if that's possible.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcxxhlla2 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fcxxhlla2: I have no idea what makes you think that I can or did semi-protect a pacge or block your username. However, I think i know enough about Wikipedia to tell you that evading your block by using a different username is not allowed. See WP:SOCK. I simply heeded the semi-protected edit request from the talk page, and for now I intend to take no further action at Popcorn Time. LjL (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Iran, also known as Persia?

Hi Ljl. I've tried to get the Talk page discussion back on track by creating this section, and by starting a RfC, with a view to getting everyone to agree that Iran is not now commonly called Persia by any significant group, so it shouldn't be in the Lead as an AKA. It's not entirely worked :) .
Still, a recent development is an editor called HistoryofIran has suggested "formerly known as Persia in the Western world". As you were the editor who took issue with Vormeph's edit that started all this, I'd be interested what your view was.
Just to emphasise, this is purely to do with the Lead. I'm all for a full exploration of the current use of Persia in the "Etymology" section, or similar. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bopomofo

Just to let you know, I have blocked User:76.176.22.252 for one month for evading the block placed on User:209.66.197.28 and User:209.66.197.15, and for resuming disruptive editing at Bopomofo.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: ah, I have taken a bit of a hiatus from actively following Wikipedia like a hawk, so I hadn't noticed there was more disruption... I am not overly surprised though, as he seemed quite intent on his mission of correcting bad pronunciation and spelling! LjL (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed! Enjoy your hiatus. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)