![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
you have made some wikipedia article proctected from vandalism. Thanks and continue this great work of yours. This my appreciation to you effort . Thank you Tbiw ( talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC) |
On 2 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Central Park Five (opera), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pulitzer Prize–winning opera The Central Park Five includes a role for Donald Trump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Central Park Five (opera). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, The Central Park Five (opera)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Talk:List of George Floyd protests 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. With a
Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Love of Corey (
talk) 03:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
On 5 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 dismissal of inspectors general, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. president Donald Trump dismissed five inspectors general in the space of six weeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 dismissal of inspectors general. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, 2020 dismissal of inspectors general), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—valereee ( talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm done with this discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
He’s caught on balloons he floats to the ground WokeHuke ( talk) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
He is caught on balloons and would therefore float down, there is no source or proof of him dying, but I would cede “falls to the ground” instead of “falls to his death” since neither can be proven WokeHuke ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @MelanieN WokeHuke ( talk) 19:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Did you not see Russell floating on balloons in an earlier scene? Like I said there weren’t enough to hold him up indefinitely, but there would be enough to slow his fall, I’m right on this WokeHuke ( talk) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
Arbitration has been requested and your conduct here will be reviewed WokeHuke ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to move protect the article Hong Kong national security law but I couldn't figure out how to do it. The article is due to appear on the main page as a DYK on 13/6 and it is desirable that it is stable. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Melanie, would you consider closing the discussion at Talk:George_Floyd#Adding_Criminal_History_Section_to_Article after a reasonable time has elapsed to gain full discussion and consensus. It is a contentious topic, and at this point, probably needs an uninvolved admin to oversee the discussion as it is very contentious with a lot of editors who are passionate about including the content on both sides of the debate. Thanks in advance. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon.
I see that you are responsible for adding a specific line in the lede of the George Floyd matter, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Floyd_protests_in_Portland,_Oregon&diff=prev&oldid=976722664 "One person was shot and killed in a clash between protesters and counter-protesters. [1]". While perhaps at one very early point that may have seen to be approximately correct, I am challenging that because I believe it misrepresents what actually happened that day. In large part, this was because the early cites have apparently been misrepresented. I have placed the initial part of my argument on that Talk page. The facts indicate that Aaron Danielson was NOT killed "in a clash between protestors and counter-protestors". The video evidence clearly shows that there was no "clash" going on in the minutes leading up to Danielson's murder by Reinoehl. Someone has included three cites, but I think they also misrepresent what actually happened. The phrasing as it currently exists falsely implies that a "clash" caused Danielson's death, when in fact a murder did that. Danielson didn't intentionally, or even knowingly participate in any "clash", he was simply the victim of two sudden gunshots by Reinoehl, who had been stalking him in the minutes leading to the shooting. This is clearly shown on the two videos which are commonly available. Unless we take the position that ALL murders become "clashes", to refer to an intentional, premeditated murder as a "clash" misleads the reader as to what actually happened. Worse, the existing wording misleadingly claims that other people were involved in the murder, "in a clash between between protestors and counter-protestors", when in fact there is no indication that anyone other than Reinoehl was aware that Danielson was soon going to be murdered, and Reinoehl was going to do it. Aeroview854 ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I think this needs some input from someone who's good at explaining things. There is an editor who has chosen to edit war over a BLPPROD tag, engage in Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour (explained to him on his talk page, but he continues to simply insist that he is right and I'm wrong without actually explaining why), and I daresay that this edit summary is dangerously close to a personal attack. I think this'll just end in tears if an admin doesn't intervene. Adam9007 ( talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I thought about taking this to ANI, but I'm not sure it's urgent enough. MarqReg has been edit-warring on McKenzie method, and following a discussion at Talk:McKenzie_method#Redaction_section_"Effectiveness", resorted to making personal attacks. I warned him, but this led to more nonsense, and I frankly have no idea what they're talking about here (I didn't realise I had the power to remove revisions from a page's history....). But this definitely needs looking into by someone uninvolved, if you'd be willing to? Thanks. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Quick question for you or any talk page stalker: is there an easy way to see if a specific editor has been topic-banned from any page? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |