User talk:Emmentalist

Comments[edit]

I'm starting editing proper (i.e. I've edited unsigned-in for a few months) by concentrating on an article or two. I've noticed some odd patterns just by doing that and following through how they are created, who created and amended them, and so on. I see, for example, that some editors (not bots) edit non-stop; a thousand edits every 24 hours in one case. I don't understand how that works. Also, I've flagged one AfD because it looks like it doesn't conform to WP:GNG. I see that the creator of the article has created lots like it. I do think I understand what may be going on there! Anyway, very happy to be given comments or advice by more experienced editors. Emmentalist (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emmentalist,

You are a very new editor and, honestly, no one will see this post on your user talk page unless they come here to talk about a problem with your editing. Editors who have been here for years will often have their talk page on other editors' Watchlists but right now, you are new and people don't know about you and your editing habits.

If you have questions about WIikipedia, the best place to go is the Teahouse where experienced editors can try to answer your questions about editing on Wikipedia. However, a question like yours (above), can probably only be answered by those researchers who study Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Most editors have their niches they get involved in and aren't concerned with large picture questions like the speed at which other editors work. Most editors focus on doing the work rather than analyzing other editors activity...unless there are problems! Any way, good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, @liz I'll take all your advice. I've checked out Tearoom. It's really kind of you to take the time! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @力 I've put some thoughts down at the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

Emmentalist, when you have evidence of sock puppetry or meat puppetry please take the evidence and your concerns to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Until that occurs do not bring up the subject anywhere else. Tiderolls 14:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @tiderolls I didn't know about sock puppetry; now I do. I didn't bring the subject up, though, unless the fact that an account operates 24 hours a day making a thousand edits each day is of itself evidence of sock puppetry. You say 'until that occurs', which implies you don't think it does. Am I right? I've also, thanks to you, learned about meat puppetry. I don't think that applies here. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @tiderolls I've found out all about AWB et al. I think I'll go a bit more. slowly at all of this! All the best Emmentalist (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Emmentalist! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Critical Theory article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UK Nobility[edit]

At present, I'm tidying up articles which refer to people with UK peerages. Through a test case (see all links at my bio page), I've established that while titles are notable, a title of itself does not convey notability (WP:GNG) on each individual holding it. Biographical details of title holders should therefore be at the relevant article for the title, with an additional article created only where the individual is otherwise notable. Reasons for individual notability are at WP:GNG but include being a member of the UK's House of Lords. I have laid out the situation in more detail at Earl of Caldon and related pages. This ensures both that the article about each title has easily accessible biographical information upon it, articles about titles are not distorted by too-large entires about otherwise notable individuals (like, say, 1st Duke of Wellington) and articles which do not conform to WP:GNG are deleted and merged with the main title article. Happy to correspond on this subject. Emmentalist (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobility PRODS[edit]

I note your plan above regarding articles on nobility, without necessarily agreeing with it, but don't understand why, if your intention is to redirect certain articles, you are marking them as PRODs, as that will probably result in their being deleted. If you want to redirect them it would be better just to do it. Ingratis (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:MERGE. Please be aware though that just because a decision has been in favour of this in a single AFD it doesn't mean it won't be contested again at other articles, possibly with a different outcome. Ingratis (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this, Ingratis I'll reflect on those points. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to make a short comment about the notice above. I made a logical and simple edit to the article 'Gender identity'. I also put what I thought what an intelligent and thoughtful short comment explaining my edit on the article's Talk page. I have no axe to grind. The article says that gender identity is a function of biology and socialisation. It also says that it is widely agreed that gender identity is almost always set by age three. My edit softened the language. First, since if socialisation can be an important variable then we can assume that this is not mainly by age three. Second, because it is not 'widely agreed' in any case. My edit was immediately reverted and the box above appeared. The article is now wrong again, and this suggests to me that the rather intimidating box placed on my talk page does not seem to be doing the job. My conclusion is that it is best to leave the page unedited and erroneous. My interest is in ensuring Wikipedia is a good and accurate source, not taking part in a war over a contentious subject. Emmentalist (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a standard alert. I've given myself one, or rather I've given myself a lot including that one. The second sentence seems pretty clear to me. I'm not following the discussion, just making routine alerts. I've not researched the issue so wouldn't even try to give an opinion. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Emmentalist! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Verifying biographical content provided by the subject of an article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Emmentalist! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Unable to move a page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Paul Buchanan has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Paul Buchanan. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Robert McClenon. I'll certainly follow through with that if the article is accepted. I've also learned quite a bit about Wikipedia by following some of the dialogue on your talk page! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Billie Eilish on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

25stargeneral (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Buchanan (musician) has been accepted[edit]

Paul Buchanan (musician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @DoubleGrazing! Very exciting; this is my first! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Greasley[edit]

Hello, Emmentalist,

Did you mean to nominate this article for deletion? Because it was not done correctly. After this page is deleted, and it looks like it will be, please follow the guidelines at WP:AFC and follow them perfectly. This is done most easily through Twinkle which does all of the heavy lifting for you.

If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! Thanks so much, @Liz It's the first time I've done this. I'll look at Twinkle. I thought I'd followed all the steps. What is it I've done wrong? I thoughts I'd followed all the steps but I'll correct my error. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure, but from WP:AFDHOWTO it looks like you nominated the page, you created the discussion, but you didn't use the right templates. Not the end of the world, but as Liz said above using Twinkle automates pretty much everything other than writing the nomination itself, and is a huge help. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Twinkle next time! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, and purpose of article Talk pages[edit]

At Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, you made the following comment addressed to another user (diff ):

I do not doubt that you feel you are editing in good faith, but your edit is perverse and, to my mind, can only be explained by political intent. That harms the article.

There are two problems with this: first of all, an article Talk page is for discussing the content of the article and how to improve it, and not about making accusations about the motivation of other editors. The rule of thumb is, "comment on content, not on the contributor". Secondly: WP:AGF is a core behavior guideline for editors, and ascribing political motivation to an editor based on content you disagree with is a clear violation of it; you should consider striking it.

Clearly there's no need to explain 'AGF' to you, as it's clear from your opening clause that you are well aware of it. In fact, it's ironic that you led with that, and then proceeded to violate it in the second clause. If you have a legitimate concern about another user's behavior at an article, for example that their editing is based on their politics and not on a summary of the sources, the first step would be to raise a discussion at the user's Talk page about it, along with evidence to back it up. Other remedies are available, if your behavioral concerns are not addressed adequately, but please avoid commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Mathglot (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done[edit]

That was a classy move at Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. Not every editor has that level of introspection and reflection, and ability to grow from it, and it speaks well of your future here. Well done. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barn star of Resilience[edit]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		This Resilient Barnstar is awarded to Emmentalist, who recovered graciously after facing concerted opposition for good-faith Talk page proposals, and learned and improved from it, demonstrating the desirable characteristics of introspection and self-awareness that are marks of a good editor, and one is who on their way up. Good job! Awarded by Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am bonkersly pleased and enormously encouraged by this, @Mathglot!

It has made my week and it's only Tuesday! Thank you so very much! Emmentalist (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation?[edit]

Hey, Emmentalist, haven't seen you in a little while, and was just wondering if everything is okay. Hope to see you back, soon! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Mathglot. I have indeed just returned yesterday from a vacation abroad! My partner establishes some ground rules on holiday! :-) I've just read your kind notes and invitations to comment - thank you SO much. I will look now and if not too late I'll certainly make a contribution. Best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Mathglot (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Operation Underground Railroad on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:James Herriot on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Monarchy of Canada on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Glazer[edit]

Hi there, I spotted this revert [1] in the above article and your comments on the talk page. I think your thoughts are well considered and good faith and I don't intend to undo that revert, but when you mention WP:BRD, I am not sure this is quite right. BRD is an optional process but the policy in effect is WP:ONUS which states that the challenged material should be omitted until there is consensus to include. BRD itself does not allow reverting to the attempted edit while discussion is ongoing. As I say, I'm not going to go in and wikilawyer and revert. Just thought you might appreciate the heads up for the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Sirfurboy. Super helpful! Emmentalist (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]