User talk:TravelerFromEuropeanUnion

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, TravelerFromEuropeanUnion, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 15:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Information icon Hello, I'm ResolutionsPerMinute. I noticed that you recently removed content from Butterfly (Crazy Town song) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to City quality of life indices, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 23:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil:, instead of lecturing me about 'show preview', please explain why you deleted whole section from the article [1]? TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because as the IP editor says, it seems like it's not a reliable source, especially compared to some of the others. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 01:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil:, it's very nice that the IP editor expressed his own opinion, but his opinion was questioned. There is no right to delete data with sources until a consensus is reached. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, if you had used the preview button, you would have seen that you were adding back an image that has been deleted from Commons. And I still don't think some "crowd-sourced" website is on par with the other indices. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 20:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TravelerFromEuropeanUnion. Thank you for your work on ASN4G. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC-SHIPS

Before making any more page moves, please read the following guidelines - WP:NC-SHIPS. Llammakey (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Valencia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Las Palmas

Arucas, Teror, Telde and Santa Brígida are independent municipalities, they do not belong to the city of Las Palmas. Therefore, there should be no photos or mentions of monuments from these municipalities here. 95.20.232.56 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those will be the rules in Wikipedia in English, not in other languages... So this method would also have to be followed in the article about Santa Cruz de Tenerife, which is the other capital of the region.--95.20.234.232 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich

Hello. I reverted your changes to Ipswich, Queensland as they misrepresented the subject of the article, which is Ipswich as a city (urban area), as distinct from the suburb of Ipswich (the central business district) and the City of Ipswich (local government area). The changes you made appeared to contradict the hat note at the top of the page which clarifies this.

In Australia a "city" is generally considered to be a distinct urban area made up of multiple suburbs, localities and sometimes more than one local government area. (Eg. "Sydney" generally refers to a large metropolitan area extending dozens of km in all directions from Sydney itself, covering 33 local government areas. Ipswich is the same, but on a smaller scale and sits entirely within a single local government area) Confusing i know! I appreciate your efforts to improve wikipedia, but I'd suggest discussing this change on the article talk page first. Distinctions like what is considered a "city" vs a locality or suburb can vary between states and are best determined through consensus with local wikiprojects. Thanks! Dfadden (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden:, I realize that the issue of places in Australia is ridiculous. I know the example of Sydney, but you forgot that the example of Sydney is the same as Brisbane. Ipswich is not a city within the Brisbane (which is generally treated as a city in the world). a city within a city? It does not make sense. It's possible that people in Australia use the word of "city" interchangeably for everything (cities, villages, agglomerations, urbna areas, metropolitan areas etc etc) but this is the international Wikipedia, not an Australian Wikipedia. The rules are different here than in Australia. What is important here are reliable sources saying that locality Ipswich (not City of Ipswich) currently has city rights, city council and is currently has a city status. Sorry, I don't make the rules. I insert fact templates into controversial content. I also thought my changes made more sense than the previous version. City within the city sounds ridiculous, while suburbs in greater suburb of the city or local government area sounds more rational. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Queensland Government place names register [2] there is no defined locality of Ipswich. There are suburbs and localities within Ipswich City, but the broader Ipswich area itself is defined as a "population centre". The Australian places wikiproject has agreed that populated places in Australia are defined as either cities (and regional cities), or towns if they do not have recognised city status. Ipswich has been recognised as a city since 1904. It was founded only 3 years after Brisbane. At one point it was a rival candidate to become the state capital. Despite their relative proximity (they are further apart than Essen and Dusseldorf) and sharing some services, Brisbane and Ipswich have different histories and cultural identities. Brisbane just grew bigger during the 20th Century and its urban sprawl encroached on the area surrounding Ipswich. It is still appropriate to describe Ipswich separately as either a city or a regional city, much less so a locality.
You said you dont make the "rules" and that the "rules" are different for international audiences. By all means, be WP:BOLD and make changes if you think they will improve wikipedia! However WP:5P5, one of the five pillars on which wikipedia is founded states "Wikipedia has no firm rules". There are only policies and guidelines which evolve and are subject to interpretation. It's not clear to what "rules" you are attempting to apply, as you have not cited any wikipedia policy or guideline as rationale for your changes? Dfadden (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfadden: the key issue is that the city (Ipswich which received city rights in 1904) was an administrative unit. "Population centre" of Ipswich i.e. Ipswich, Queensland is not the heir of the city because it is only an area with urban buildings and nothing more. The heirs of the city with city rights are City of Ipswich. The City of Ipswich is this city. Ipswich, Queensland is central part of the City of Ipswich, this is just "population centre". The encyclopedia is a serious source of information, not an Australian regional newspaper with common names of places. Ipswich, Queensland is not a city, according to the common sense, any standards and also no sources for this. City of Ipswich works like city, according to the common sense and any standards - this is a city. Even name say this. Ipswich, Queensland is central part of the City of Ipswich, this is just "population centre", nothing more. Your text in comment is not just unsourced, it is also Wikipedia:Original research. This is also introducing false information into Wikipedia, because Ipswich, Queensland is not a city, because the city is City of Ipswich. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have quite strong views on this issue. Why not join the discussion on the article talk page and see what the community thinks? Dfadden (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfadden:, in the link to the discussion you provided, the user also said that Ipswich, Queensland is an urban area, not a city of Ipswich - so that discussion works against your point of view too. Furthermore, I don't know if there's any point in discussing this on the local talk page. The problem concerns more Australian articles and the discussion should be neutral. Discuss in Talk:Ipswich, Queensland is not good idea, this talk page will recruit mainly Australians, which will allow them to push through even the stupidest idea. The discussion should have a broader, international character, where the Australian point of view (disconnected from reality) has only one voice. Therefore, need to look for RFC or similar solutions. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to gain consensus. If you want to take it to an RFC in an appropriate place, go ahead and do it. It's not important if previous comments on the talk page agree with me - consensus isn't about "winning" an argument, rather allowing all points of view to be put forward and then a common position found. That is the agreed process for settling content disputes on Wikipedia.
So far you have spoken a lot about the "rules" of wikipedia, but have not yet cited a single policy or guideline that supports your position. Instead, you have acccused me of WP:OR and racially profiled Australians as "stupid" and "disconnected" from reality. At best that goes against wikipedia's "rules" on civility and at worst could be considered racism. Let's keep the discussion about the article and content policies. Very rarely will you win people over to your point of view if you just want to attack or insult them - another one of wikipedia's five pillars is to assume good faith. Dfadden (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfadden:, you say: "If you want to take it to an RFC in an appropriate place, go ahead and do it. It's not important if previous comments on the talk page agree with me - consensus isn't about "winning" an argument, rather allowing all points of view to be put forward and then a common position found" - I know this and that's why I wrote about RfC. So that there is no situation of appropriation of the Australian-related articles of the English Wikipedia by Australians, so that the Australian point of view is not pushed in a discussion where 99% of the arguments will come from Australians, because the discussion will be local. Discussion should be neutral. In such a local discussion like Talk:Ipswich, Queensland, only the Australian point of view ones would be discussed. Given that the topic is very disputed and controversial and changes to Australian-related articles are often contrary to international standards, a Wikipedia:Third opinion is necessary.
You misunderstood my statement, so I'll repeat it: "Discuss in Talk:Ipswich, Queensland is not good idea, this talk page will recruit mainly Australians, which will allow them to push through even the stupidest idea. The discussion should have a broader, international character, where the Australian point of view (disconnected from reality) has only one voice". So, I have never called Australians stupid or disconnected from reality. There is no racism here and you are manipulating my statement. However, my comment may actually be considered unfriendly. I assume good will, but assuming good will is not synonymous with accepting edits by some Australian users that are inconsistent with Wikipedia standards or principles, especially pillars of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and these rules are undoubtedly being broken in many Australian-related articles like Ipswich, Queensland. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:TravelerFromEuropeanUnion"