Today is Monday, June 27, 2022; it is now 13:28 (UTC)
|This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.|
|This user prefers to communicate|
on-wiki, rather than by email.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118
Threads older than 20 days are typically archived. Some may be archived sooner.
Hello, I left a question about a possible copyright violation on Talk:A Hundred Years from Today. I don’t know how things work in this wiki, I saw that you contribute to the pop music portal and are an admin. Can you help, please? Huñvreüs (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Huñvreüs: North America1000 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Find me one GA-class or FA-class article that has the singles charts within the article itself. I was unable to find any. Most album articles don't include the singles charts at all, so there's a very strong consensus not to include them. Does 1989 (Taylor Swift album) have the singles charts? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: I did miss that the singles were in the infobox in the This Is It (Jack Ingram album) article. That said, your mass removals of content from articles is coming across as vandalism at this time. You have been removing Singles information from articles per your own subjective opinion that they're somehow not needed, using ambiguous and even oblique edit summaries simply stating "no" and "no singles". You are making up your own rules here for their removal, stating there's "...consensus not to include them".
- However, the Singles section has been in place in the article for over a decade, since 5 July 2011 (UTC) (diff), so actually, the longstanding implied consensus is for the Singles information to be present there, not omitted. In an edit summary you left for this article, you stated, "WP:MOSALBUM says nothing about adding singles tables" (diff), but this is a straw man, because 1) WP:MOSALBUM also says nothing about omitting singles information and 2) WP:MOSALBUM is an opinion essay; it is not a policy or guideline.
- At the present Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence page, several users have questioned your motives lately in matters regarding deletion as well as blanking and redirecting content (example link), and your removal of singles content is a similar behavior; you're erasing content that you subjectively don't like, for whatever reasons. If you don't want singles information in articles, then you should start an RfC about it and obtain community input, rather than unilaterally and arbitrarily erasing it from articles. North America1000 05:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The edit history shows  TenPoundHammer has removed the content four times in a row. So this does count as edit warring. Dream Focus 12:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Yeah, I noticed that before, but the reversions did not all occur within 24 hours. North America1000 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: A total of three editors (Donaldd23, Dream Focus and myself) have now reverted you erasure of singles content at This Is It (Jack Ingram album). The latest reversion of your erasure performed by Donaldd23, came with an edit summary stating, "Chart positions aren't in the inbox. MSALBUM says NOTHING about singles being listed in the album article" (diff).
- It is clear at this time that the consensus for this article is for the singles content, including the chart positions, to stay in place. Please stop unilaterally erasing content that you don't like from Wikipedia articles. North America1000 19:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are still thousands of other articles that do not have it, so the consensus is clearly in my favor. Should we file an RFC on this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: I find your logic to be a rather backwards in terms of Wikipedia's purpose to provide complete, comprehensive information to the public, and also regarding the building an encyclopedia; essentially a syllogism of sorts. Some articles are incomplete and need to be expanded. However, that does not mean that the consensus is for more developed articles to be dumbed down based upon the condition of inferior articles. For example, there are thousands of film articles that lack a Reception section. According to your logic, then the Reception sections in film articles that have one should therefore be removed from those articles, because thousands don't. It seems that all you're really interested in 99% of the time is erasing other people's work. See also: WP:NOTHERE.
- So, you don't like singles content in articles. Well, how about the Featured list Rihanna singles discography article? The entire article is about singles, and it represents some of Wikipedia's very best content.
- You still haven't provided any reasons to qualify singles content being removed from articles, other than stating in edit summaries, "no singles". I strongly recommend that you initiate a full Request for comment from the community regarding your stance of "no singles" sections in articles. That would a good way to move forward for an actual consensus to be formed. Otherwise, your content removals simply come across as subjective WP:IDONTLIKEIT actions, "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted". North America1000 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The precedent is that FA and GA class album articles do not include a singles discography table. Does 3 of Hearts (album) have one? 1989 (Taylor Swift album)? No. Every other FA and GA class album article I checked does not have a singles discography. So if it's not included in FA- and GA-class articles -- which are supposed to be comprehensive -- it shouldn't be included at all, right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: It's obvious that others disagree with you, as evidenced by three editors that have reverted your erasure of singles content at This Is It (Jack Ingram album) alone. It's unlikely we will reach an agreement here regarding this matter. As I stated above, I feel that the most functional way to move forward is for you to initiate a full Request for comment from the community regarding your stance of "no singles" sections in articles. North America1000 20:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Chart performance section shows the album's "Peak position" so no reason not to show the singles beneath that. The information in the infobox doesn't have that information. Articles that have the chart section quite long, like the mentioned 1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)#Charts, don't seem to list the singles information there, but probably because not enough room to list that much information, they instead put that information in a separate article Taylor Swift singles discography. Dream Focus 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And Jack Ingram also has a discography section on his article because his main article isn't overly long. So by your logic, if the info is already contained on his discography, it should not also be in the albums. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Her article has a lot more charts listed. The information at her singles discography is too long to fit, and would just be spun out. So in that case, instead of having articles for each album's singles, it makes more sense to have them altogether. This_Is_It_(Jack_Ingram_album)#Singles does not take up much space to list the singles there. Dream Focus 21:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're saying there's no policy based reason not to include it. But under what policy based reason should we include it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
If you restore a page at WP:REFUND that was deleted for being an expired draft, you need to make a minor edit to the page or it immediately will be eligible again for CSD G13 deletion again which is what happened with this page. If you use the script, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, to restore pages, it will make this edit for you. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Liz: Thanks very much for the heads up. I restored the draft using the script. I've never encountered this problem before, and there's virtually no information anywhere about manually resetting the draft timestamp. The Template:Draft article has zero information about resetting the time stamp that I could find. Am I missing something? There's a note at Template:Db-g13, stating "Bot" edits do not affect the G13 timer." However, that template was not in place when I restored the draft. North America1000 03:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
NA1000, I really don't get it. You are going for something that's not there. There's nothing inherently more special about deep frying eggs, and, more importantly, your source didn't say the things you wanted it to say. This is really silly and I strongly urge you not to pursue this. And "Give me time to actually finish my work on the article, before reverting instantly"--come on now. That's nonsense and you know it. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- In your edit summary, you stated, "No. p. 286 of that book says NOTHING like "quite dangerous" (diff). The verification is here, on page 287, not on page 286. I have since updated the page numbers for this source in the article as "pages=286-287" (diff). Also, here it states that adding the eggs directly into the hot oil "can be rather dangerous". I used the word "quite" to naturally avoid close paraphrasing. I have since added the direct "rather dangerous" quote, because for this dish, it can truly be "rather dangerous" to prepare. Also, while you may not like this topic, it is quite difficult to expand a brand new article when someone comes along erasing content while it is still being worked on. North America1000 01:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that I don't like it (whatever "it" may be--but nice try), the problem is that you like it too much--and by "it" I mean turning little things into huge things. You've been doing "brand new articles" like this for years now. Are you pretending that deep-frying an egg is somehow more dangerous than making french fries? Why not explain in every single relevant article that boiling things in water is dangerous? Boiling water is much more dangerous than hot oil, you know. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. This is not included in the article, but posting here: "The water content of eggs is relatively constant (on average 74%); egg white contains more (about 88%), whilst egg yolk contains less (about 49%)." North America1000 01:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Eggs contain significant amounts of water, but perhaps not enough to eject a plume of fire to the ceiling when added
to deep hot oil. Regardless, the water content can cause hot oil to significantly erupt and splatter.
eventually reaching ignition point
Pouring a very small amount of water into the fire ejects a plume of fire
which rises and spreads against the ceiling
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberger process. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)