User talk:Golikom/Archive 1

Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for so actively reverting vandalism and politely warning people! Loymdayddaud (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

My edit on Alexander the Great

May I ask why did you reverted my edit on the article of Alexander the Great? There was no wrong information within it. Alexandros17 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The Motivation and Message of Evangelism

Please explain what is wrong with including the motivation and message of evangelism in an article about evangelism. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not providing proper WP:RS Golikom (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I quoted the Bible. That is a proper source for Christian evangelism. What source does Wikipedia consider "proper" for evangelism? Bushido77 (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I also linked to the Wikipedia page entitled the "Great Commission." I am not certain what reliable sources you are looking for. Bushido77 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources that talk about evangelism. Not OR from a primary source. Wikipedia is not a source for itself Golikom (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I apologize. I thought an article that was approved in Wikipedia would have been vetted and been considered a reliable source. I will look for other sources along with the Bible and Wikipedia. Bushido77 (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is improperly sourced. Some of the sources were encyclopedias and dictionaries. What sources are you looking for? The majority of what I wrote were direct Bible quotes. How can a "quote" be unencyclopedic in tone? While I was searching, I saw other encyclopedias with included Bible quotes. Bushido77 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talkpage - I replied there. Golikom (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. I am new to editing and I am learning. Bushido77 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey

Don't post frivolous warnings on my Talk Page. You can @meh on the talk of any page where you wanna have a discussion on. Just not mine. Alltan (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you stopped making disruptive edits there wouldn't be any reason to warn you. Golikom (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t make disruptive edits, that’s your opinion. You come in reverting, not using the talk page, calling people pov pushers and nonsense talkers etc. I dont care honestly, just not on my talk page. Do it anywhere else. Alltan (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing longstanding categories that the subject clearly falls into is disruptive editing. I am using the talk page, I made my reversions clear in edit summaries, including going back to do a dummy one to make that clear. Golikom (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject does not fall into the category. Moving forward you can use the talk page of articles in question, not a personal users talk page. Well at least not mine. Alltan (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

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

Mr rnddude (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Gyles brandreth

Thank you for pointing out my mistake in adding QI stuff. However, shouldn't the stuff a out Jeremiah brandreth be removed as well? If you do this, also èdit Jeremiahs page as it mentions gyles as a descendant. Thanks again Sushidude21! (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Historical Figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality

Hey! I noticed that you removed my category from most of the articles it was featured on. I was wondering if this was a disagreement on how we define "ambiguous or disputed" or if you believe the category shouldn't exist in its current form? I am always open to criticism, and I am in no way intending to defame or otherwise confuse the legacies of people in antiquity. Rylee Amelia (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a poor ambiguous category open to a lot of OR. Golikom (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you may think that, but I specifically have only use this category for articles that discuss disputed theories surrounding the sexualities of historical figures. Similar standards exist for Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. I don't think it is appropriate to scale down my work due to fears of OR when the articles reference these disputed claims, therefor I am not using OR as a basis for these edits. Rylee Amelia (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

But not all the articles you added so adequately sorry the inclusion of this category Golikom (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This sounds more like a difference in opinion on these theories rather than a function of how the category is used. I believe that this category applies to articles which have a section discussing competing theories surrounding the sexuality of a historical figure. It appears you don't agree with this use, but I don't understand your rationale. I think it may be valuable to bring in a third opinion, because I don't see this conversation going anywhere. You are also welcome to nominate the category for deletion if you believe these issues make it difficult for the category to be used correctly and meaningfully. Rylee Amelia (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Gingham revision

Hello,

Curious about undoing the revision on the Gingham page as it was labeled as unsourced, but the citation was right there. Can you explain this a bit better? Not challenging the revision, just trying to better understand the reasoning.Tengu99 (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted immediately, a mistake Golikom (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Christian mansell image

Dude i know the image with the sunnies isnt 'perfect' but as of right now its the best we can do and is a whole lot better than the old one that ive had multiple people question if its actually christian, yes a photo without sunnies would be better but even with sunnies you can tell who it is better than an image from 2022. You are being borderline possessive over that image and his page and it needs to stop 49.186.58.44 (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What's your relation to him - there's a clear COI here. Golikom (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont see how there is a clear a "clear COI" involving my relation but to satisfy your stubborness im a fan of f2/f3 and saw him in the paddock of a race we both attended.

Now whats your relation to him and the original image and why are you so determined to keep such an old image?? 49.186.58.44 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The COI is you claim that he's asking you to edit his image on his page.

I've no relation at all. The current image is better, his face is unobscured and 2022 is not "such an old image" Golikom (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

how about the clear beach image of Christian you denied. Its a clear photo that's copyright free that was recent and had a clear image of his face

Why did you deny that. Motorsportfan100 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Where have i ever claimed he asked me?? Sure others may have but not me personally, this is an issue that has been brought up in multiple instances on different social media platforms with zero involvement of christian.

And while yes 2022 is not that long ago for an image of someone in their mid 20s christian would have been 17 when that image was taken and will soon be 20 and that is a period of time where a lot can change in a person and it has making the older image almost unrecognisable.

Forgive me for not believing you when you say you have no COI when you are being this insistant on the image staying despite many people believing the new image is better, so i ask again what is your relation? 49.186.58.44 (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about - what beach image have I denied?

A load of fan chatter on social media is not a reason to change a photo. IT's clearly the same man bar the growth of a beard.

I've no objection to a decent recent image that's well cropped - but the sunglasses one is crap. Golikom (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the vote of many here outweighs your single that we all agree a more recent photo despite the sunglasses is still better than a photo where more than just his beard has changed. If you are so opposed to that photo find a new updated photo or we will stick with the updated one we have 49.186.58.44 (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This can be cropped if necessary this was changed a while back that was reverted and it's on Wikipedia commons which means it's completely free to use

And since you're the control freak here excuse me for believing it was you Motorsportfan100 (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting deletion of redirects

Hello Golikom -- Thanks for patrolling. Generally unsuitable redirects are considered at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, except for very clear cases, which should be tagged with WP:R3. If the redirect might conceivably help someone to find what they are looking for then it isn't considered speedy material. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)