User talk:Fulmard

ITN recognition for 2021 Osaka building fire

On 19 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Osaka building fire, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is ITN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Fulmard (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means "I think not". There are different definitions, but this is most commonly used on Wikipedia. Severe storm 28 01:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is short for "In the news", one of the sections on the main page. This is a good achievement! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm David Biddulph. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Osaka movie theater fire. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You may have intended to add references? David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added references. To real sources. With text to go along with it. I did not add external links. You just walked on by and nuked an hour of my work and gutted the articles. Hats off for improving it David, hats off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulmard (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulmard: Please don't be discouraged. As you can see in the Teahouse thread, we want you to stay and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Work that is reverted is usually not lost completely, and Gene93k and Cullen328 have been helping to bring the article closer to Wikipedia's house style. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulmard: I apologize if my comments on your article added to your discouragement. I consider it to be a well-written article, with just a couple of reference problems. Perhaps it would help if you took a short break from Wikipedia editing, and then come back when you feel ready. The deleted sections have been reverted by a couple of helpful editors, so the complete article will be there when or if you decide to come back and work on it some more. I am sorry you had such a bad experience. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

I was unsure if you're writing as an American, which I guessed with the title Osaka movie theater fire (theater being American spelling), but the article also has theatre in the prose and non-American date format (1 October 2008, should be October 1 2008 to accord with American usage consistency). If you could confirm, here, thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I copied the title from List of massacres in Japan. I put brackets around the title that was there and then clicked on it. I did not correct the American way of spelling that was already there, I probably would've written theatre if I had written it from scratch.

OK, thanks, it's not a major problem, just bits that need to be aligned. The normal protocol is to use American variation in American articles, British English in British articles, and to follow the style set during the early establishment and subsequent changes to an article that is neither Am or En orientated.

It might need to be renamed (to theatre) or not, I'll leave it for others to determine as it's something I've not encountered previously. I only saw it via the Teahouse (I am not a Teahouser). rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will fix it.Fulmard (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced content

Thank you for your message in the edit summaries at List of massacres in Japan - as a relatively-new editor, it would've been better wikiquette if you had made this clear at the time. Better still, would be to trawl through the history and inform the relevant editor(s), and/or leave a note at the article Talk page - I only glanced but think I saw 17 December? So may not have been so difficult to achieve. I'll look later, in the middle of several things now.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the ref you deleted (17 Dec) - please do not unilaterally take the decision to do this; if someone subsequently dies, you can add a newer ref and leave an explanatory note at article Talk.

To comply with Wikipedia protocols over deletions, I have invited you to explain why you took the decision to delete content (twice) at Talk:List of massacres in Japan#Editor dissent over title of article and qualification of content. These deletions will be considered as controversial.

As you have added an unformatted reference, the target of which appears in Japanese characters (Kanji?), can you confirm if you are a Japanese speaker?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used a newer reference with better information, not the initial news. Because you have difficulty with Japanese, I replaced it with https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14507073 in English. The English translations get published after the Japanese. I will respond at the talk page, however I see nothing controversial in removing murders that are not massacres from a list of massacres.Fulmard (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, did not have any trouble with non-Roman Japanese as Google Chrome will translate; Wikipedia operates on the basis of assuming good faith - and that means giving credence to the efforts of others that have gone before you. Deletion of content without due explanation will always be considered as controversial. Please also read WP:BRD and WP:OWN. I saw your approach to the Teahouse and was initially interested; I will now withdraw from this topic entirely.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2021 Timor Leste earthquake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 Timor Leste earthquake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Timor Leste earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Your thread has been archived

Hi Fulmard! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Why is my article marked for notability, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

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

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Godzilla Megamullion

On 1 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godzilla Megamullion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Godzilla Megamullion is at least ten times larger than all other known megamullions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godzilla Megamullion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Godzilla Megamullion), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,165 views (1,013.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't know about these page views, that's way cool! Fulmard (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing from Category:Cryptography because it is already in child cat using Cat-a-lot

Hi, could you please elaborate on that? CrypTool as the most widespread open-source and free elearning tool for cryptology was in the category cryptography. I understand you removed it there. Could you please name the link to the category where it is listed now? Can an entry be part of only one category? Thanks a lot. 2003:E1:8733:2C00:3051:8084:BC9F:F5D2 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the subcategory of Category:Cryptographic software. There is no need for the parent (or grandparent) category here. All Cryptographic software is related to cryptology . Fulmard (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Language

You removed my correction. Why? 87.116.181.248 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't neutral. Fulmard (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. 87.116.181.248 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning people

You have reverted a hefty amount of edits but you have forgotten to warn people when you do so. For example in this edit, your edit summary is just 'not like that' and you haven't warned the person whose edit you reverted. Please do so next time as having your edits reverted for reasons you don't know could be discouraging. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 08:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sangsangaplaz, I place warnings on user talk pages when appropriate. For instance this received a BLP warning three minutes prior to Degeneracy. However, the edit to Degeneracy was not in my view an egregious edit requiring a warning. It was not vandalism, it was not particularly non-neutral. It wasn't a good edit - it was lacking in tone, style, and relevance for a Wikipedia disambiguation page - and hence I reverted it, and 99% of editors would revert it. However it is not an edit I would warn someone about. I reverted it with an AGF tag. Should they have persisted in such an edit, I would've discussed with them on the article talk's page. I only place warnings on user talk pages if their behavior should lead to a block (in AIV or other fora). Fulmard (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the revert assumes good faith; you should always notify the person whose edit you have reverted. Notifications or warnings are intended to explain why an edit was reverted, not to admonish the editor per se. Typically, there are four levels in the 'Uw' family of templates, with the first level always assuming good faith. Therefore, if you are assuming good faith, use the first level or write a personalized message. As stated in my original message: 'Please do so next time, as having your edits reverted without understanding the reason could be discouraging.' Regardless of whether the edits were made in good faith, you should still notify the person whose edit you reverted. And yes, I used ChatGPT to fix my rushed English. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 12:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. An edit summary, which I generally place, suffices for an AGF revert. A warning is completely out of the question for most AGF reverts - warnings, even uw1, imply behavior that may lead to a block and an AIV report. An uw1 warning leads to a following uw2 warning. Fulmard (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I personally think Uw1 warning or even better, a personalized message. The recent changes patroller page even recommends so. “

Warn the editor

In the cases of deliberate vandalism or an evident lack of knowledge on Wikipedia procedure, offending editors should be warned on their talk pages. While this is an optional step, the Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism says that a final warning should always be given before reporting a vandal, and warnings should be a regular part of a patroller's duties, as it minimizes conflict, educates new editors and alerts administrators of repeat offenders. For efficiency and consistency, standard warning templates can be used. However, do feel free to simply write a warning if the available templates are not appropriate.

”

Almost if not all Uw1 warnings never say or imply anything about blocks or reports. And people tend to notice new messages in there talk page rather a not so obvious revert warning in the notifications tab. And if they are new, they might not even understand what an edit summary is or where it is.

Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 11:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warn on cases of deliberate vandalism or other Wikipedia problems such as promotion or lack of neutrality. In an AGF revert, I generally do not see a reason to warn an editor. Fulmard (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you should warn them is to remind them that their edit was reverted for reason ‘x’ or ‘y’. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 11:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]