Hello, Revirvlkodlaku, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! NortyNort (Holla) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editsEdit

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page House (TV series). Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your test before you revert it. Thank you. ChamithN (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages!Edit

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding a comma before an "and" is incorrectEdit

Please see my edit and summary here. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


For further information on userboxes, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Glad to help! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Orange Mike! werewolf (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citizen of Glass (September 17)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Revirvlkodlaku! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Citizen of Glass has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Citizen of Glass. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citizen of Glass has been acceptedEdit

Citizen of Glass, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Citizen of Glass, third studio album by Danish musician Agnes Obel.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are you adding Oxford commas?Edit

Lauren Southern consistently does not use the serial comma, yet you are attempting to add it. Why are you making this change, which is essentially a shift in English variety? —C.Fred (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello C.Fred, the reason I have added the serial comma to Lauren Southern's article, as I do to any article I read, is that I believe it adds clarity to a sentence. If you would like to see a comparison of a sentence with and one without the serial comma, and the difference it makes in the definition of the sentence, I will be happy to point you to one or several freely available online. werewolf (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on Three Days Grace pageEdit

Hello @Walter Görlitz:, you recently reverted several edits I made on the Three Days Grace page, and even though they were not all of the same nature, the only explanation you provided was "We're repeating the band's name too often. Use prepositions instead." Can you please provide justification for reverts not involving the use of the band's name, as well as explaining how you determined that the band's name had been used excessively? I have tried to alternate the terms "Three Days Grace", "the band", and "they" on the page in order to provide variety, and I found the use of "the band" repetitive, especially in close succession, this is why I changed it to "Three Days Grace" in several places. I am open to reverts if they are reasonable, and I am certainly not set on my edits remaining if they are inappropriate. Additionally, and please believe that I do not mention this out of spite or vindictiveness, but neither "the band" nor "they" are prepositions or preposition phrases, so your reason for reverting my edits doesn't make grammatical sense. Your confusion on this point should be taken into consideration both by yourself and any other editor who will review this issue should it devolve into a disagreement. werewolf (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I only reverted one of your sessions. Can you please provide justification for any of your changes as they were all unexplained? And this discussion should probably be on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I can see that you reverted one of my sessions, but you haven't justified doing so. Your only explanation was grammatically flawed, which potentially disqualifies it. I am happy to move this discussion to the article's talk page, but I'm curious to know, do you intend to justify your revert in any coherent manner? werewolf (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HAEVN (April 26)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HAEVN (May 29)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TryKid was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
TryKid (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw your responseEdit

I saw your response to my revert. I also saw that you cited your sources, which is a good thing, however, the guardian is pretty much a tabloid and not reliable (not arguing, just saying ! ). If you | look at the Oxford dictionary it shows both actor and actress as being in common usage with actress being used to define a female actor, also note that | cnbc also uses actor and actress to indicate gender.

Both are reliable sources. Then there's Mos:genderid (which believe it or not I disagree with, but it's a guideline so it has to be followed - oh well, it just goes to show that sometime's Wikipedia has it's collective head in it's ass! :) ) which says

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") (emphasis is mine) that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.


This tells me that female actors need to be referred to as actress(es) not actors.

I notice you didn't revert, and that's fine, we can talk it out, that's ok too! (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I didn't revert because that usually just leads to a revert war, which is ridiculous. I wasn't aware that The Guardian had become a tabloid, but I don't think this necessarily suggests that stories published in it are less valid. The important thing to do is to read the content and focus on its merits rather than the vehicle which published it. Regardless of what the Oxford dictionary states, and notwithstanding the guideline you cite regarding genderid, the fact remains that gendered job titles are going by the wayside, as I would hope you have noticed, and actor/actress is one of the last gendered profession titles in the English language that I can even think of. If you speak with people within the acting profession, you will notice that most of them have switched to referring to women as actors. This, to me, is a strong indicator of the trend with which the appellation is changing, and this is the reason I made the edit. As I said before, it won't be long before someone else makes the same edit and you will find yourself fighting against the tide if you continue to revert this. Out of curiosity, why is this issue important to you? werewolf (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually tablod mean not reliable. The Oxford dictionary is reliable and Wikipedia uses reliable sources only, and yes, there are exceptions, like when quoting someone's thoughts on a subject :). Funny you should mention actors - I am one. (stage actor to be fair ). It's mixed, some people say "actors" regardless of actor but the majority say "actor" for a male and "actress" for a female. It's not demeaning in any way, you either do the part or you don't get the job. (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This is, in fact, incorrect - if you look at the discussion at Talk:Actress (disambiguation) you will see a number of sources supporting the assertion that "actor" is used interchangeably with "actress" for female performers; the OED does not make any kind of claim that "actress" is preferred for females, only that both terms are used, and corpus based dictionaries (which are based on actual language usage) state that "actor" is more common and more neutral. And where did you get the idea that The Guardian is a tabloid source? It is published in a tabloid format, but that doesn't mean that it uses tabloid journalism - two very different things! "Actress" is a marked term, and while it is not obsolete nor offensive it is (by definition) less neutral, and there is no reason to change "actor" to "actress" for female performers unless the individual has stated a preference for that term. In the case of a French speaker, it is unlikely that she would have expressed such a preference concerning a foreign language. It's also natural that editors with French as their native language should see "actress" as neutral and unmarked, as that is how French works - but it's not true about English. (I'm not saying that the IP is French, but the editor who is being belligerent at the article in question is.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Bonadea, I appreciate the input, finally someone who doesn't think I'm an extremist or grammatical ignoramus on this topic! werewolf (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
You are neither of those things! I would not personally think it worthwhile to systematically change "actress" to "actor" in Wikipedia articles - if nothing else, some individuals have a personal preference, and in e.g. Indian English the gender-marked noun is just as common, perhaps more so, than the neutral one - but it's anything but "extremist" to do so. Language is so closely connected to identity that it is frightening to some people that it changes, and that things that are obvious to ourselves can actually be proven to be incorrect. I think that's what causes the strong reactions - some kind of subconscious fear of change. But I am a linguist, not a psychologist (or even a psycholinguist) so this is just my amateurish guess. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with you on English usage, and I suspect your theory on why the change sets certain individuals off may be correct. In the case of the French editor it may be a case of conservative/liberal conflict, or perhaps it is due to the more strongly gendered language that is native to them leading to bafflement at the changes I made. In either case, after the attacks made against me yesterday I felt I was being bullied, and your supportive actions have been a huge relief, so thank you again! werewolf (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your disruptive political activismEdit

You are obviously a far-left extremist vandalizing articles to push a radical political agenda. Your bizarre edits corrupting the English language will promptly be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharploki1 (talkcontribs) 03:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Bonadea for your support on this issue. I notice that you have blocked this user, which I appreciate as I felt mistreated by them. werewolf (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not block them - I'm not an administrator so I wouldn't have been able to do that - but I reverted their pointy edits and gave them a warning. An admin came by just after and blocked them, though that's nothing to do with me. I would happily have reported them, but there was no need for that! --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
No, the ones making disruptive, "pointy" edits are you. The articles were already fine they way they were. Females who act are called actresses. You are making unnecessary and highly divisive changes that violate English grammar; therefore, you are the ones being disruptive. Further proving that you don't understand basic English grammar, you repeatedly referred to me in the plural. Obviously, I am only one person. If you are so illiterate that you cannot even follow the fundamental rules of English, then you should not be editing the English-language Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

{{subst:error1|Iva Bittová}}

A kitten for you!Edit

You are welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely kitten, @Fylindfotberserk:, that is so kind of you! ❤️ werewolf (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi, articles for deletion nomination is explained at WP:AFD. If you have any difficulty with it let me know and i'll set it up for you, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy, I'll check into it and then I'll get back to you, thanks a lot for your help! werewolf (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Atlantic306:, I've gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion, would you mind checking it over to see if I did it right?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 27#Core-and-pod Much appreciated! werewolf (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Hi, have checked the AFD and it is fine except the creator wasn't informed so I left them a talkpage message. Regarding the rationale, being an orphan and a stub are not grounds for deletion, (there are more than 500,000 stubs and many orphans) but the other reasons are good. I won't be taking part in the discussion as I don't know much about the topic, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)19:44
Thank you again for your input, Jimmy, it is much appreciated :) werewolf (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Akane YamaguchiEdit

Hello. I know you're busy, sorry to bother. Can you take the time to copy editing for this article? I really need your help. Thanks you very much. Xecvws (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xecvws: Hello, I have looked at the Akane Yamaguchi talk page after receiving your request, and I notice that several other people have been contacted, seemingly out of the blue, with similar requests. Can you please explain why these requests are being sent out to different editors in regards to the Yamaguchi page, and what is your interest in having this page edited? Thank you werewolf (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking me. I think this site has a lot of errors, which is why I'm afraid to edit this page. Can you help me, if you can fix it. Xecvws (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xecvws: You haven't entirely answered my question. I'm suspicious of the fact that so many other editors have received random requests to edit that particular page. This all seems like some kind of spam attack. Can you please explain? werewolf (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Black Mirror: Bandersnatch does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Bilorv:, thank you for the reminder. I generally do add edit summaries but sometimes I forget. As for the short description of the film Bandersnatch, the first time you reverted my edit you said the description needed to be under 40 characters, so I shortened it. Why did you revert it this time? werewolf (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
One other thing I should mention is that when adding or editing the short description of an article, either on the desktop site (through Wikidata) or on the mobile app, I'm not aware of the option to add an edit summary (I doubt it exists, but I'm willing to be proven wrong), so I don't think your feedback is pertinent in this case. werewolf (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The description you added was still 48 characters long, but Wikipedia:Short description says The short description should be as brief as possible, so even if we shortened it to under 40 then I would still prefer the current description. The fact that the film is related to Black Mirror is self-evident from its title. I wouldn't object you adding that it's from 2018 to the description though.
When editing on mobile generally, you can edit the page directly and use an edit summary. Any edit that you make using a tool is still an edit you are responsible for; it is not appropriate to make a contentious edit without an edit summary, so your options are to make the edit manually with an edit summary, to leave a talk page message somewhere explaining the edit, or to not make the edit. — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the short description I wrote for the page is more relevant than the existing one, especially the fact that the film is part of the Black Mirror franchise. In my opinion, the fact that "Black Mirror" appears in the title doesn't make that self-evident, it could simply be a non-related film with the same generic name. The fact that it's on Netflix doesn't seem as important to me, however. It does seems like this is subjective, or contentious, as you say. You appear to be guarding the page quite closely so I'm going to leave it, I get the impression it's more important to you than it is to me.
As for edit summaries for short descriptions, the option doesn't exist on the Android app as far as I can tell, perhaps we are talking about two different things?
Lastly, I love that you have a "Numberwang" userbox 😃 werewolf (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added "2018" to the description. If you look at the style of how these short descriptions are displayed, immediately below the title, I think it's visually redundant to repeat "Black Mirror". The description can't explain the topic fully, only give you the gist of the category it's in (i.e. interactive film). As for the edit summaries, what I mean is that you can open a browser, load up the page, click edit, change the text in the short description template and leave an edit summary. I have no idea how the app you're using works but I know that on your device, there is still a way you can edit a short description and leave an edit summary in a case where it is important for you to do so. And finally, thanks—it should generate a new random number every time you purge the page, and take you to a different number article every time you click it. Feel free to use it yourself if you're interested. :) — Bilorv (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! werewolf (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Changing edits on Michael EnrightEdit

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku, I read the Washington Post article before editing your contributions to Michael's page the first time and nowhere does the WP make the false claim that Enright tired to "sneak" into the United States illegally. And that is what your paragraph suggested even if you didn't mean to suggest that. That can cause Michael serious problems. What is the point of making people think he attempted to "sneak" in the country illegally when it is not true? He attempted to enter the United States legally with his passport, and that is why he was stopped. This is why I changed the article. I hope that's okay with you. He nearly died many times fighting ISIS and certainly doesn't deserve this. Komicie (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Komicie, thank you for explaining your reasoning. I have reread the WAPO article and it seems the truth is somewhere in the middle. You are likely right, using the word "sneak" may not be the best choice as it does suggest that Enright tried to get across the border illegally, in the way that many Mexicans sneak across the border illegally, for example. However, if you read this paragraph, it makes it clear that Enright knew he would have a difficult time getting back to the US due to his multiple overstays and so he attempted to take advantage of how busy the crossing was in order to go unnoticed: "His epic tourist visa overstays, 30 years of living in the United States without legal permission, were going to make things hard for him — to say the least. He developed a plan: attempt to cross from Mexico into California through the San Ysidro border crossing south of San Diego, the busiest in the United States. Maybe he’d blend in with the hordes and get across, he thought." People who are not legally restricted from crossing a border do not need to devise plans to do so, this clearly shows a man who knew he would be very lucky to get across at all. Regardless, I will gladly remove the word "sneak" from the Wiki page, but I notice that rather than merely changing that word, you insist on deleting an entire paragraph which essentially recapitulates Enright's attempt to cross the border, something which can be verified in the WAPO article. Why do you do this? werewolf (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Revirvlkodlaku: Thanks for your response. I got your message on my talk page, and I'd like to explain my revisions. The Washington Post article talks about how Enright fought and risked his life. By just claiming he did sentry duty without giving him credit for fighting, you take that away from him, and it's unintentionally misleading to the Wikipedia readers. And every edit I made is true and can be found in the Washington Post article. Where in the Washington Post article does it say Enright did sentry duty? It talks about how he risked his life fighting ISIS. There's a section where he almost got killed at a building behind the Islamic State front. I think our contributions have been important to the page. By the way, I think you did an excellent job on Enright's filmography.Komicie (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Komicie (I'm David, by the way), thanks for explaining, and I appreciate the calm tone you have kept throughout our conversation. I reread the WAPO article twice and it appears you are right, it doesn't say anywhere that Enright did sentry duty; I suspect that bit is from the Daily Mail article, but besides the fact that DM is a deprecated source on Wikipedia, I think your point about minimizing Enright's contribution to the combat effort is valid, so I'm happy not to include it.

You have once again changed the part about the way Enright attempted to enter the US, and I'm not sure why since it is documented in detail in the WAPO article. I suggest leaving it as I wrote it since it doesn't misrepresent the truth in any way, but rather it gives a better picture of the circumstances than the version you wrote. Lastly, the paragraph about his second tour of duty with the YPG was fine the way I wrote it, I'm not sure why you changed that. You present the idea that he "helped liberate Raqqa", which is somewhat speculative and I don't think it is explicitly stated that way anywhere, including the WAPO article. I do get a sense that your perspective on Enright and his contribution to the YPG effort is subjective, and though I can sympathize with it, it is important to make sure the account printed on Wikipedia remains as impartial as possible. werewolf (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku David, you wrote me "@Komicie, I see that you reverted my edit yet again, this time without any explanation. This is simply not how things are done on Wikipedia, and it is beginning to be tedious and silly. Nothing that I have written and which you undid is non-factual or unsupported, you simply don't like it because it doesn't fit your personal feelings towards Enright. This is not a mature way of editing. I am going to take this up for a third opinion."

David, first, I was following up on you changing my edits without an explanation. You completely reverted by edits and then claimed it was a minor change, which it was not, without leaving an explanation. Since you did that first, why are you criticizing me for not leaving an explanation? I'm new to this, so I'm following your lead. Also, I'm not sure how you did it, but your changes did not show up on the Web site, but only in the the phone app. I wouldn't have even noticed your major changes if I didn't check the phone app because the Web site still had my edit on it.

You say the fact that Enright "helped liberate Raqqa" is subjective. How do you figure that? He fought and risked his life in the battle that liberated Raqqa, which objectively means he helped liberate Raqqa. This is not subjective at all. And though you may not mean it, every time you edited Enright's page, it leaves readers with the impression that he tried to "sneak" into the United States illegally as you originally had it. You claim he was "captured" when he tried to reenter the country. I've never heard that term used before to describe someone who had his or her passport flagged when he or she tried to enter the country legally. You keep saying that your edits are factual, and should not be changed, but I find them negative and misleading, and I doubt that's your intention. For example, maybe it did say in the Mirror article that Enright did sentry duty, but it clearly states in the Washington Post article that Enright fought in combat. You read both articles, yet chose to only put he did sentry duty. Why? That misleads readers into believing he only did sentry duty. In addition, I believe the Washington Post is considered a more credible source than the Mirror. The Washington Post article was such a positive article, but your edits on Enright's page based on the Post article have been extremely negative, and they imply that he tried to sneak into the country illegally. And why do you claim that his motivation for fighting a second time was driven by his fear of being labeled a terrorist? It is clear in the Washington Post article that he went back to get information on ISIS to help him get back into the United States, and that he wanted to help free Raqqa. All my edits can be found in the Washington Post article. They are all factual. Why do you want to change them?Komicie (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Komicie (might I know your name?), you are absolutely right, I am being hypocritical without realizing it. I didn't want to undo your edit as that seems tiresome by this point, but I also didn't want to leave it as it was, so I made changes without explaining them. My apologies for setting such a poor editorial example. I have been approaching this discussion with some amount of entitlement and an even greater amount of irritation, neither of which is appropriate. Perhaps we can take a step back and look at our points of disagreement once more, this time before actually doing any edits on the page:
  • I'm fine with the liberation of Raqqa bit. I do think it's subjective, his contribution to that large-scale event is likely very minor, but whatever, I don't need to argue that.
  • I do get a very clear impression that Enright attempted to cross the Mexico-US border illegally. Someone who doesn't have a valid US visa and multiple overstays on their record must surely know that there is no way they will get across legally. Thus, even though the WAPO article doesn't explicitly state "he tried to enter illegally" or "he tried to sneak across", it is clear to me that he attempted to go unnoticed, and there is a mention of him trying to blend into the crowd of border crossers. What does this suggest to you?
  • "Captured" is the same as "arrested", is it not? Enright was arrested by border officers while trying to cross to the US, according to the WAPO article. Can we not let that stand?
  • I'm over the sentry duty bit, as I mentioned to you earlier. I just checked, and that bit was there before my first edit on the page, so whoever included the Daily Mail article likely put that in there.
  • The WAPO article states that Enright didn't wish to return to the UK for fear of being labelled a terrorist or terrorist collaborator. You don't see that in there?
  • I think it's important to include the part about his current residence and situation in Belize. Why do you keep removing that? werewolf (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Komicie, I just wanted to check in with you to make sure the conversation is still open. I would like to be able to resolve our differences on this topic in a fair manner. werewolf (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Stamets editEdit

On my talk page, you said: "you just reverted a whole bunch of work I did on the Paul Stamets page without even any attempt at explaining why. This borders on vandalism, and it is highly unprofessional. If you have a valid reason to change what I did, please state it, but don't undo all the effort I put into good-quality, properly-referenced material just on a whim."

All of the new content you added is resume or promotional information, which is discouraged under WP:NOT, as I indicated in my edit summary. All that content in the lede and under "Career" and "Recognition" is fluff from a resume; WP:PEACOCK. If you want to discuss and gain consensus for any additional factual, encyclopedic information, the talk page is the place for it. --Zefr (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
For perspective, read the descriptions from a few of his supplement products here, then review what the WP medical community uses for sources at WP:MEDRS. This man is an egregious liar with no professional knowledge of human health and disease mechanisms, yet deceives the public by using his mushroom expertise to sell useless products that he thinks will "save the world". The Wikipedia article has to remain neutral and present his basic facts (the previous version did), as described in WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Your edit promotes him with "passion" and various other exaggerations and attributes mentioned under Career and Recognition, a section that - to a neutral rigorous scientist - reveals him as more of a lunatic charlatan than a credible mycologist. --Zefr (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Zefr, some of your criticism of my edits may have merit, something which is worth having a debate about separately, but this in no way entitles you to undo my edit wholesale. Apart from adding information in the Career section and creating a Recognition section, in my edit I also corrected minor grammatical errors, I added a website, and I updated his bibliography, which was incomplete. You don't seem to have bothered to actually look at my edit in detail, instead you scrubbed it in one go. I find this to be not only egregious on your part, certainly as someone who has the distinction of being a senior editor, but it completely disregards the work I put into editing the page; additionally it sets a bad example for other editors, suggesting that "senior editors" have the power and authority to scrub anything which they find not to their liking. My edits didn't contravene any rules or guidelines per se, and your personal views on the merits of Paul Stamets's research and scientific credentials are beside the point here as he is clearly a respected voice in the mycological community, so it is in fact your own perspective that is non-objective. This type of large-scale bully-like behaviour is a huge deterrent to new and perhaps more timid editors and I think you should reconsider such action in the future. If you did not have time to properly assess the merits of my edit, you should have waited until you could sit down and perhaps parse out the good from the bad, not simply hit "undo", a casual and lazy action in this case. I really hope you reconsider your actions and decide to act with greater moderation on this issue, as I am convinced your attitude is rather tyrannical, and certainly inappropriate. Please let me know how you wish to proceed, hopefully we can resolve this matter in a civil manner. Please remember that you do not have any ownership over the Paul Stamets article and only non-factual information should be removed immediately, all other changes should be discussed on the talk page. werewolf (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
No edit is final, and a large change like you made and the revert of mine can undergo consideration and partial restoration through agreement by us and meanwhile serve as an alert to other editors about disputed content. In this case where your edit contained excessive resume fawning/puffery material, it would be fine to reinstate factual grammar, infobox and book details, and let the larger segments sit until more input (or none) occurs. I did a mass undo because a) > 95% of your edit was peacock resume content that violated WP:NOTCV, and b) the article history shows winnowing of the content that seems to have stabilized to objective WP:BLP content over recent months. Regarding the puffery information you added, I ask you to apply a skeptical objective attitude, as there really is no evidence of professional (academic, USDA or internationally established) mycologists accepting Stamets as a valid peer. Giving any credibility to most of his puffed-up story creates validation and marketing opportunity for his charlatan business of selling junk ideas and products to unsuspecting Wikipedia users and business customers. If you want to persist with the peacock content, the place to present and defend it is on the talk page. However, I recommend you abandon that position. --Zefr (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stamets; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz this is a nonsense accusation. I have not engaged in an edit war, I reverted once after my work was undone wholesale with an unsatisfactory explanation by a bully senior editor, and then I did a separate, non-controversial set of edits. How is this edit warring?werewolf (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires you find consensus before restoring clearly disputed material. I'm sorry that you're going through this, but working on biographical information is difficult. Far more so when working on biographical information where there are general editing sanctions.
If you'll look, I went through your most recent edit piece by piece, retaining much of it. You didn't provide a reference for the birthplace, so I asked on the talk page for someone to identify one. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Stamets' birthplace is mentioned in the section Personal Life, that's where my correction stems from, and that seems to be referenced, no? Also, you didn't keep the publications I added to his bibliography, though those seem just as well supported as all the ones already included in the article. His bibliography is currently incomplete. werewolf (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the birthplace reference. I've updated it in the article.
If there are any noteworthy entries you think should be added to the bibliography, entries mentioned by independent sources especially, please point them out. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to serve as a host for resumes or the like. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ronz, does listing all an author's published books constitute a form of resume hosting? Why then have a bibliography section at all and only list select titles?werewolf (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, including all publications is treating the article like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. We want noteworthy entries, not his life's work. Does that address your questions? --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This has definitely not been my impression while reading and editing Wikipedia articles, as they either list a complete author bibliography or they will state clearly that the bibliography is partial. Could you show me where this concept is articulated? werewolf (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOT and WP:POV. I don't recall ever seeing it challenged to the point of even an RfC. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and...!Edit

First of all thanks for your valuable edits and fixes on the page Awadhi language. However, in one recent edit that you have removed a large section of cited information from "folk" sub-section of "Popular culture" section of the article. The reason you gave i.e it was highly "interpretive" and "redundant". I think I can make it less interpretive. Also, giving a verse translation of a folk song (which is by the way taken from the source itself) can be really helpful to readers. Will you be okay if I go ahead with the edit? I want to make sure that we are not in an edit conflict. Have a good day! Sattvic7 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Sattvic7, thank you for being so considerate and even polite about this issue, I have never encountered such an approach on Wikipedia before, and I must say that it's refreshing and gratifying as well. You are right, I removed a significant chunk of the section on folk uses of the Awadhi language based on my own discretion of what is and isn't relevant to the article, but I also understand that I know very little about the topic itself, whereas you appear to be in a better position to speak on it. Please do go ahead and edit the article as you see fit, I am mainly concerned about the grammar being correct, so if you don't mind, I'll just review it for grammatical accuracy after you are done, ok? Cheers! werewolf (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

3O declinedEdit

Please note that I have removed your filing at WP:3O on the grounds that there has been no discussion (I could locate) of the issue you raised, which is a prerequisite for a 3O filing. The third opinion noticeboard is intended for situations where just that is needed, a third opinion. If nobody disputes your views, you're welcome to edit in the manner you believe to be best, as someone could always revert you later (and hopefully join the discussion you started). Otherwise, you're welcome to request additional opinions at any Wikiprojects associated with the article you're concerned with, or consider other forms of dispute resolution. Happy Editing, and Happy Holidays! DonIago (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi DonIago, thanks for that. I did have a discussion on this topic with another user but it was on their personal talk page rather than the article talk page, so the mistake I made was not linking that user's talk page on the 3O request. I will do so now :) werewolf (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good! Werewolf? :) DonIago (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:M.I.GODEdit


Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "M.I.GOD".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! ~riley (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi ~riley, thanks for notifying me. I decided not to work on the draft shortly after creating it, but then I forgot to delete it, so I'm fine with its deletion. werewolf (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Short_description#Content - "The short description should be as brief as possible". Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, while what you say is true, the description should be as brief as possible, this should not be at the expense of an actual useful explanatory description. "2019 film" barely says anything about the article, and adding an extra few words to the description, as I did, in no way makes it overly long. I think my description should stay. If you have an issue with it, please bring it up for discussion on the talk page. werewolf (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding translation tagEdit

When you translate text from a foreign language Wikipedia you should provide attribution to the original authors in your edit summary, which you have done in the case of Sogegross, and also by adding a translation tag to the talk page, which I have done in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Cwmhiraeth: What's a translation tag? werewolf (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Have a look at the Sogegross talk page and you will see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I did that, I was hoping you would be able to explain it to me. What is the purpose of that category? werewolf (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you still there, @Cwmhiraeth:? I was hoping you would help me better understand the translation tags. Thanks. werewolf (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't add the category "Pages translated from Italian Wikipedia", I added the tag on the right that says "This article contains a translation of Sogegross from it.wikipedia." This is added for copyright reasons, so that the originators of the Italian text can be identified. You will see that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is covered by the statement at the foot of the editing page before you save which says "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Hope that explanation helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's great, thanks for explaining :) werewolf (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sinatra: DuetsEdit

Hi – have seen your PROD on this article and I don't disagree with it, but just for information, it was in fact a TV special (you're right, the article as it stands doesn't make this clear at all)... here's a review of it from the Los Angeles Times [1]. There are probably other reviews of the program, but as the TV critic notes, it was basically a promotional item for the Duets albums, and really not notable enough on its own for an article in my opinion... I suspect it can be mentioned in a line or two in the album articles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Richard3120: I appreciate you bringing this to my attention (and not deprodding the article instead). I'll look for a few reviews and add that to the Duets articles. werewolf (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chilanga (Lusaka), Zambia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chirundu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A questionEdit

Hi, I've noticed you are replacing the WikiData default Short Descriptions on a bunch of articles with ... the identical texts. This achieves what to me is the following remarkable combination of effects:

1) any future change to the WikiData default value will be ignored in the article, so #

1a) any well-meant attempt to update globally will fail;

2) the current value remains as the old value from WikiData, so it's to say the least non-obvious that any mechanism has been broken;

3) the actual text available to readers is not improved in any way.

So my question is, why on earth would anyone want to achieve that combination of effects over a whole bunch of articles? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Chiswick Chap:, I'm not entirely sure I understand all the points you have made, and I am detecting some frustration in :the tone of your words. I will try to answer you as best I can:
It is my understanding, according to the explanation of what constitutes the purpose of short descriptions and how they are applied, that :switching from using Wikidata descriptions to adding a short description template to each article is desirable. Please see lede in
Wikipedia:Short description.
1) Short descriptions can be updated as needed in the article itself. Not sure what you mean by 1a)
2) +3) Not necessarily. I haven't simply been transferring Wikidata descriptions into short descriptions. Many of them yes, when they seem :adequate, but others I have updated based on my evaluation of their appropriateness. werewolf (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I don't see the point of adding text when the short description does not change at all: in each case, as your edit comments make clear, the text you are adding is IDENTICAL to the WikiData short text, i.e. you are making null data changes. Struck me as very curious so I wondered why you might be doing it. Or perhaps you are just using a boilerplate edit comment which doesn't correctly describe what you are doing? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm mainly switching the short description into the article itself from Wikidata, as I am under the impression that this is the desired goal of the project. I'm not sure what boilerplate edit comment I would be using...am I missing something? werewolf (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Chiswick Chap:, I didn't hear back from you. My question to you was a genuine one, and I'm sure your concern was equally genuine, so let's get to the bottom of this :) werewolf (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Well one question is easily answered. The boilerplate edit comment is "Adding local short description: '[name of article]', overriding Wikidata description '[text of Wikidata shortdesc]' ". I can't for the life of me see why overriding a default text which makes itself automatically available is a good thing when you're not even changing it. When you do change it, obvs. that could be beneficial; it was the unchanged case that I observed repeatedly that got me wondering what you could possibly be trying to achieve as the result certainly looked like being nothing. Your explanation, if such it was, leaves me none the wiser, so I think I'll sign off here, and hope not to see it happening again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Your attitude, from the start, was unfavourable to dialogue, even borderline rude. Still, I wanted to understand your concern, so I engaged you in an open conversation, explaining my reasoning as best I could. I supported my reasoning with a wikipedia link, which itself explains what I am trying to do. This was not satisfactory to you, however, but instead of continuing the dialogue, you simply signed off without bothering to respond, and you continue to insist that what I have been doing is silly. You may have a point, I'm not sure, but unless you are willing to discuss it in a civil and respectful manner, you won't be successful in getting it across. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, meaning we should all be pulling on the same end of the rope. Your arrogance and rudeness goes directly counter to this endeavour. I suggest you think on this before accosting other editors with your misplaced sense of superiority. werewolf (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing like that intended. I just can't see what the edits were for, that's all, as they don't seem to achieve anything. You do not seem to be a gnomish micro-editor of spaces and linefeed characters, and there have been many such on Wikipedia; but I still don't know what the edits were for, and I've now several times asked the question in different forms and in great detail, enumerated above. If you want me to know, go right ahead, I'll read your answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Chiswick Chap:, thanks for acknowledging. I've tried to explain to you that what I'm doing is transferring short descriptions from Wikidata to the articles themselves. My understanding from the article on Short Descriptions was that this is desirable, so where is the problem? I've even run this by another editor after receiving your response, who agreed with me. I'm struggling to understand why this is a problem for you...werewolf (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, David and I were talking off-wiki and this came up (I'm not sure if I'm the "other editor" mentioned above). Personally, I find the realm of short description best practices a bit confusing, and I vaguely recall some recent disagreement elsewhere on-wiki regarding its implementation. I'm reading WP:SHORTDESC, and I believe David is referring to this passage as a justification for his edits: Initially short descriptions were drawn from the Description field in Wikidata entries, but because of concerns about including information directly from another project, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) made provision for these to be overwritten by short descriptions generated within Wikipedia. Honestly though, I understand your concern, Chiswick Chap, that updating short descriptions on en.wiki will disrupt cross-project updates when the Wikidata entry is changed. There's a lack of continuity there. And where does WikiProject Short descriptions fit into this picture? The project appears to want to add a short description to each Wikipedia article, which would certainly override the Wikdata default. I'm not sure what the solution to the global update problem is, but there does seem to be precedent for David's edits, at least in theory (if I'm reading these project pages right). Airplaneman (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Airplaneman has it. Basically, if WikiData already holds a value, why do we need humans to add that value anywhere, the job having been automated? Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation is just short of a bit of programming, automation, to make proper use of that value. I don't know but find it "kinda weird"; as I said, it seems a null operation, take value already available and, hey, make it available. But many odd things in life are like that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise is called for, then: instead of importing all short descriptions from Wikidata, only doing so with those needing improvement? werewolf (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jake NutritionalsEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jake Nutritionals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Lapablo (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have deleted this as A7, because there is no claim of notability. Deb (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dead linksEdit

We do not routinely remove references because they have gone dead as you did in [Childbirth in Uzbekistan]]. The refs remain the source of the information despite going dead, and someone may be able to repair them in the future – see WP:DEADLINK for more information. Removing all the refs and then proposing deletion as unreferenced is somewhat disingenuous to say the least. Unsourced does not equate to unverifiable in any case, see WP:BEFORE. SpinningSpark 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark thank you for the correction. I had assumed that if a link was dead, it was better to remove it. The article is terrible and provides no credible information, nothing that can be verified, so I am still convinced that it should be deleted. There is no need to assume disingenuousness when mere ignorance will do. werewolf (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I made an unwarranted suggestion. I'm seeing quite a few google and gbook results for "beshik tui" (note the spelling is variant from our article) and some of the other terms also have results. Whether or not all of the page is verifiable is a different question, but the whatever the problems, I don't think they are severe enough to warrant deletion. SpinningSpark 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough 👍 werewolf (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Buridda (social centre) (June 4)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dance in UzbehkistanEdit

Hi, I disagree with your slashing of this article. The material may not be all referenced inline but it is mainly contained in the general references, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306 The article is terrible, both in the way it's written and the fact that most of the claims in it are not actually supported in the references. I cleaned it up, and yes, I removed the bulk of it, but you haven't in any way improved it by reverting it to its previous state. I invite you to improve the article by fixing the egregious scope of grammatical errors contained within it as well as removing any subjective descriptions of Uzbek dance which are not supported in the linked articles. werewolf (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic306 The article has sat untouched for a week so I have gone ahead and edited it again. I believe that the material which I have slashed from the previous version is poorly written, subjective to a great degree, and even redundant, considering that much of it is copied from some of the provided references. The version which I have edited was not written in a useful manner to an English reader and it certainly didn't meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. If you are unhappy with my edits, I encourage you to improve the article in the best way you can, but please do not simply revert my good faith edit as you did last time, erasing the effort I put into it without attempting to put any work into the page yourself. werewolf (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, there was nothing wrong with the grammar in the previous version but I agree that the unreferenced parts should have been removed. I've checked the references and there is a great amount of detail that could be added so I suggest you do so as you seem to have taken ownership of the article and are likely to remove any additions that I make, regards Atlantic306 (talk)
You are being unnecessarily combative with me. I haven't taken ownership of the article at all, I made an attempt to improve it. You cancelled out my work last time, with an unsatisfying explanation, seemingly ignoring the fact that the page is grammatically challenged (are we not reading the same article?!). When I invited you to improve it instead, you ignored me. I have restored what I felt were appropriate edits on my part. There should be no reason for you to think that I will remove any additions you make unless you simply restore the article to the way it was, which is no improvement at all. werewolf (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

12th Mirchi Music AwardsEdit

Hey, This is DueMue, I am inviting to please edit in 12th Mirchi Music Awards which I have recently been created.

Aftermath please give your valuable feedback on my talk page.


DueMue (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


music in many languages

Thank you for quality articles around music, beginning with Citizen of Glass, then Kreyson, Fête du Citron and Wanastowi Vjecy, for translating articles from Czech and Slovak, for proofreading, fixing grammar and expanding, - David, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2428 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt, this is the first prize(?) I've ever received on Wikipedia, thank you so much, it means a lot to me that someone appreciates the work that I do ❤️ werewolf (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tribute removed from Hacaaluu.Edit

Sorry for my English but in case you wanted to translate [[Oromo] try facebook by posting and then see in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maammee (talkcontribs) 14:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maammee, I don't quite know what you mean about using Facebook as a translation tool. Are you able to find an English version of the story? werewolf (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Inconclusive edits?Edit

I don't understand these edits. Why have character description being deleted? They aren't unnecessary rather your edit was unethical. Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Abhishek Kasaudhan 123, I'm assuming you are referring to the article Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2? I don't see how my removal of character descriptions is unethical, perhaps you meant to use a different word. As I mentioned in my revert, the character descriptions are included in the Summary section, there is no need to repeat them in the Cast and Characters section. This isn't convention on Wikipedia, perhaps you could look at some other articles as an example. Please don't engage in an edit war but rather discuss this on the article talk page or seek a third opinion if you are unhappy with my edits. werewolf (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I don't see that unethical is a wrong word. Please familiarise yourself with MOS:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST, please. Character description is not at all mentioned in the plot/summary section. Plot section is for describing the summary of the story. Thanks ( Abhishek) 12:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 I didn't respond to your comment here before editing the article once more because it is apparent to me that your command of English isn't up to par, so this discussion is likely futile. The fact that you consider an edit I made "unethical" clearly demonstrates that you don't understand the word's meaning. Additionally, the character descriptions you insist on inserting into the article are grammatically unsound, so again, evidence that trying to have a discussion with you may not be the best use of my time. At this stage, you are merely repeating the description of the two lead characters on the show, and this is already included in the plot summary. Why? werewolf (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I understand the word's meaning and I told that your edits are unethical because they are. Again the question which you are asking that why is the description of lead characters are mentioned in both Plot and Cast section truly signifies that you are not familiar with WP:TVCAST. Again, I repeat the same, familiarise yourself with WP:TVCAST and you will know the answer to your questions and also you may be able to know that why were your edits unethical. Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  3O Response: Use of "unethical" should be avoided. As for the substance of the edits, I agree with Revirvlkodlaku that there is no need to repeat this information on the characters multiple times in the article. Astral Leap (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC) .

Okay, so I change my opinion of using word, "Unethical," rather I should say, the edits didn't seem "constructive." So, yeah the information should not be repeated in both "Plot" and "Cast" section, but as per MOS:TV - WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST, the information is supposed to be in the "Cast" section and not in the "Plot" section. Plot section is for describing the basic shape of the story and not the character description. Like, in plot section describing 'Shravan as a happy to go, affluent, spoilt, indisciplined teenager belonging to civilian background' and all that stuff for Suman as well makes the plot lengthy. For such character description, we have the "Cast section." I repeat, familiarise yourself with WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (talkcontribs) 18:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

While I do understand why Revirvlkodlaku is opting not to repeat the information, the unintended consequence of these deletions, is that we have yet another Indian TV article with a cast list hyper-fixated on family trees and interpersonal relationships instead of proper, quality, character descriptions like most other non-Indian TV articles have. (See List of Millennium characters) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— Diannaa (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your change to Isle of Man TTEdit

Thanks for shortening the description - you'll see from this edit that the description was incorrect when added by (presumably) an American who was inexperienced in the local governance, and I sought to add guidance and prevent the same thing happening again.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It's funny because I actually didn't realize the Isle of Man was not part of the UK until I saw the page and made the edit! werewolf (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sri Lankan MalaysEdit

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit on Sri Lankan Malays. I have explained my edit in the edit summary. If you still disagree with me, we can discuss at the talk page to come to an agreement regarding the information. I also think it'll be good if we bring sources to back up our claims if we do decide to discuss at the talk page. Thanks. (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC))

Hi 2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460, I think your explanation of the edit is perfectly sound. I had previously reverted it because no good explanation was provided, but as I know nothing about Sri Lankan Malays or whether or not they speak Javanese, I'm happy to let it stand. Thank you for taking the time to explain it in detail and also to leave me a note on my talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi David, you're welcome. Thanks for letting me know that you're okay with my edit. Hope you have a good day. :) (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC))
2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460, out of curiosity, why don't you become a registered user on Wikipedia? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, that's a good question. I like editing Wikipedia as an IP user as I've been editing Wikipedia like this for many years now. My IP address often changes but more recently it's often stayed the same. I may create an account in the future though because I know it's easier to keep track of edits. (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC))
Well, you seem to know what you're doing and it appears that you are acting in good faith, so I think you are a valuable addition to the platform and the community :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much David, I really appreciate your kind words. I definitely enjoy being a part of the Wikipedia community. :) (2001:8003:5C28:6700:A529:8477:7830:BF4A (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC))

Note: Hey Revirvlkodlaku, these IP ranges are just Sapah3 editing out to mislead you. He's always had an account. Just hoping to let you know so that you're more aware of it in the future. He's been blocked for 2 weeks (initially indefinite). Machine O' Mans (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Machine O' Mans, thanks for the heads up. What is he blocked for? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Diana Lee InosantoEdit

Someone reverted your reversion on this article and I can't seem to undo it easily (I get an error about intermediate edits). I'm mostly a very minor typo editor so I may be missing access to a tool, or simply knowledge. Just wanted to let you know in case it's easy for you to fix; if it's manual let me know and I can just do it! Trickycrayon (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trickycrayon, thank you for the heads-up. I have restored the last good version of the article. There seem to be a number of single-issue-users who wish to embellish Inosanto's page with poorly written content, none of which is referenced. If this persists, I will request the article be locked. Thank you again for informing me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sarah HayesEdit

Please look at the article before I reverted it. That is how you left the article, with random formatting characters and her website link removed. The problems there are evident, and I reverted your edit because it was so poor and careless. Don't make it out to be about spaces within templates, it isn't. --Monxton (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Monxton, if you had checked the page history (and the condition in which I left it after undoing your revert), you would see that I fixed my formatting errors and replaced Hayes' website. My edits were done in good faith, as I'm sure were yours. There is no need to be combative about this, let's be sure to collaboratively improve the article rather than bickering. What I would ask of you, however, is that rather than reverting my edits wholesale, as you did prior, you fix individual errors, as that is far more productive. By reverting my entire edit session, you inadvertently reintroduced errors that were present in the article and that I had attempted to fix. I'm sure this was not your intention, but sometimes editing requires finesse rather than brute force. Good day. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Medice, cura te ipsum? Yes, I have indeed made editing errors in my time. Had I had deleted useful and correct information about the subject and left an article looking like that, my first response would be to apologise, not to go into the attack. --Monxton (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
But I'm not the one attacking, you are. Just read your messages to me up to now. I've admitted my errors and did my best to fix them. If you can't get over this issue without continuing to bicker with me, then I'll ask you to stop posting on my page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Your explanation for the revert: "The formatting which you insist on maintaining on this page is not correct. For example, there are no spaces before and after pipes in a flatlist, so why reassert such errors?" is a claim that my reversion was based on some imagined personal objection to trivial formatting differences which are apparent only to the editor and do not affect the reader's view at all. That was untrue, and is an accusation of bad faith. You did not acknowledge the state in which the page had been left, which could reasonably be seen as vandalised.
Your opening sentence here "If you had checked the page history..." implies that I had not. You have no basis for that, it's just needlessly confrontational. I had checked it, and found that I had to edit the page again to restore the remaining information that your edits removed. Bye. --Monxton (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You are right, I made the mistake of conflating a revert you made with one made by another editor, that's why I said you insisted on maintaining the formatting. My apologies for that. However, me pointing out that it didn't seem like you had checked the page history isn't needlessly confrontational. Had you in fact checked it, you would have seen that after undoing your revert, I did in fact fix my formatting error and I replaced Hayes' website. It seems you are fixated on some perceived slight on my part. Let me assure you that I had no intention of hurting your feelings. I was miffed at the two subsequent reverts of my work but as it turns out, they were done by two separate editors so again, my apologies for that. It would be much more desirable if we parted as friends than enemies seeing as we are both pulling on the same rope, wouldn't you agree? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry, I only just noticed this. Thank you. --Monxton (talk)

December 2020Edit

  Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to David di Donatello for Best Foreign Actress, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 I did provide an edit summary. I provided you with two sources demonstrating that the award wasn't granted in 1958. How is this a failed verification? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Revirvlkodlaku, yet you left the article in a state which baldly contradicts what you claim the sources say. Either the sources are right or the article is right: which is it??? Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23 No need to be aggressive, you've made the edit, that's good enough. The maintenance template was unnecessary so I removed it. You removed the mention of Marilyn Monroe. This is what collaboration is all about. Have a nice day :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of editEdit

Hi there. You just reverted this edit with a description of "no reason provided for deleting external link". But there was a reason in the edit, the reason was "Remove copyright violation. May be on Archive.org but wasn't legitimately released open source." This book is not open source, has never been released open source. It's a commercial publication. It may be on Archive.org but that doesn't make it copyright free or legitimate. In fact if you check you'll notice that it was added to Archive.org the very same day it was added to Wikipedia by a user with a large selection of copyright warnings on their user talk page. Seems quite likely that the same editor performed both actions. Since this is a link to obviously copyrighted material it should be deleted, and in fact should be revdeled. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury Tail, I apologize, I had overlooked the reason you provided for your edit, must have been distracted. You are right, the link should be deleted. I have corrected my error :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That's what we get for editing late at night :) I've actually reached out to Diannaa, our resident copyright expert, for her insight. Seems the editor in question has a habit of uploading copyrighted material to Archive.org and then adding links to them. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Haha, yup, late-night edits, I'm quite familiar with those 😣 Oh wow, this individual sounds rather devious... Revirvlkodlaku (talk)
Yeah. The user on Archive.org that uploaded those seems to have directly uploaded a lot of books to the Archive. I may go through the Wikipedia user's edits and see if there's any more such links around. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion taggingEdit

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku,

Any time you tag a page for deletion (PROD, CSD, AFD), please include an edit summary describing what you've done. Also, you should post a notice on the page creator's talk page informing them that you tagged one of pages they've created. If you use Twinkle, the program does this automatically once you set up your Preferences. It makes things easy so I encourage you to use it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I do have Twinkle enabled, where in my preferences can I set up notifications to the creator of a page I've PRODded? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)