User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Polyamorph. 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.

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit to a redirect page. That was something I was trying to do - and it failed... and I could use some help. On the page Live streaming, with a space, another editor had gone through and changed all occurrences of "live streaming" to "livestreaming" (no space) based on current notation in dictionaries. However, the title of the page was still "Live streaming" (with a space). So what I was attempting to do was to move the page to "Livestreaming" so that it all aligned correctly.

However, I knew there was *already* a redirect from "Livestreaming" to "Live streaming". So, following what I could see on WP:PAGEMOVE, I first attempted to change the "Livestreaming" page (that only had a redirect) to "Livestreaming (original)", thinking this would then allow me to move "Live streaming" to "Livestreaming". However, Wikipedia then went and "helped" me by creating a NEW redirect of "Livestreaming" to "Livestreaming (original)" - which was NOT what I wanted. At that point, I didn't want to mess anything up... so I went to the new redirect for "Livestreaming" and changed the redirect to point to "Live streaming" ... and so everything was working again.

In the end, all I want to do is move Live streaming to Livestreaming. Any suggestions on how to make this happen would be welcome. Thanks - Dyork (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dyork:. First thing we need to move Livestreaming (original) back to Livestreaming. Then we need to do a round-robin swap of Live streaming to Livestreaming. I've requested a speedy deletion of Livestreaming so we can move Livestreaming (original) back to it but still waiting for an admin to do this. To do the round-robin swap you need the page mover user right to move a page without leaving behind a redirect. I have this and so can do the move once an admin completes the requested speedy deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dyork: the move has now been completed preserving the original edit history, Livestreaming (original) will be deleted soon. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Polyamorph: - Very cool! Thanks for doing that.. and thanks for cluing me in that there is an additional user right (that I don't have). Many thanks! - Dyork (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries @Dyork:, you might want to apply for the user right yourself if you think you can help over at WP:RM. Happy editing Polyamorph (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph,

I discussed this topic with John B123, and they told me on my talk page: "Another reviewer has had a look. Their opinion was that your version[1] was poorly sourced and eligible for deletion per WP:G4. However the charting single would go someway towards meeting WP:NBAND if a suitable citation was added. If you want to develop the article by adding further references then that's fine. I would suggest you add the {{in use}} template whilst you are working on it to advise others you are still working on it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)"

I put the {{in use}} template on the page while I'm developing the page, isn't it correct? --Vimoral2 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You used the template incorrectly, you need to remove the "tl|" part to use the template on an article page. Polyamorph (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have reverted my edit at Lung Kong. However, I want to point out that "Lung Kong" is a romanisation of the Chinese name (龍剛) of Patrick Lung. You can take a look at the title of this HKSAR government press release (text is in English). ~ Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 10:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Aseleste:, there was no indication of this in the target page and I was concerned given that this is a BLP that is was inappropriate. If the article is modified to contain sourced reference to this name, then a disambiguation might then be appropriate. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this recent change should make it obvious to the reader that "Lung Kong" is an alternative name apart from the info box. (side note, the person in question is not living) ~ Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, OK, my mistake regarding BLP. I will restore the DAB page. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph, I changed the "Ritva" redirect to a disambiguation page. You commented in your revision, that (presumybly my change) "breaks multiple pages linking here". Is ther a way to find out those links? so that I could change those links to the correct site and restore the disambiguation? Thanks! Hi.ro (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Hi.ro:, I did not make that comment, you'll have to ask Lithopsian (talk · contribs) about that. But regardless, you cannot have a disambiguation page with only one wikilink, which was the reason for my revert. Polyamorph (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Specifically about existing links to an article: in the sidebar (on the left in the common Vector page theme, but possibly elsewhere on other themes and possibly in a menu) there is a link called "What links here". Click the link and it will take you to a page showing all articles with wikilinks to that page, and some options for filtering the results. Note that it will not show you urls from outside Wikipedia which may also exist, these are almost impossible to detect although page usage may show if there are a significant number of external hits to an article (except redirects, which are generally only counted as hits to the target article). Consider that changing a redirect to a disambiguation page is effectively the same as taking a page on one subject and overwriting it with a different subject. You should take care to, at a minimum, chase down wikilinks to that page and fix them because you just broke them. Consider if there are likely to be external urls to the page, especially likely when it has had a particular form for many years, and consider not changing it at all if you're going to wreck them also. Consider that multiple existing wikilinks (expecting the current page contents, or the target of a redirect) may mean the page is best left as it is. On the other hand, existing wikilinks expecting a different or mixed page meanings can be a very good reason to create a dab page. Lastly, consider the policy at WP:NAMELIST: "articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it", so only convert to a dab page if there are multiple entries for people known solely as Ritva and there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I am dubious that two out of the three people you listed fit this criterion, although you could also consider a WP:HATNOTE if there is a small possibility of searching for some of those people solely by their first name. Lithopsian (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both! And sorry @Polyamorph: for misreading the history and putting it onto your talk page @Lithopsian:: I would consider changing those 14 internal wiki links to the specific article away from the redirect page. External links I can not control of course, but I would say, this is the risk of linking to sites that they change - and the repective article can be still found (as well on the first position) on the dab-page then. Of course, if you see some reasons against this, please let me know, then I can save the effort :-) Hi.ro (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that the Pukka Herbs page was redirecting to our Master company Unilever, but we want to have a brand page of our own, as we operate separately to Unilever.

I am the Digital Lead at Pukka and we have an issue with our website being impacted by the wrong information on Wiki, so I removed the redirect and entered in the information about our brand, but saw that you reinstated the old redirect. Is there something I did wrong? Happy to validate my job role.

Thanks, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukkaherbshq (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The very fact that you are associated with the company tells me you have a conflict of interest as as such you should avoid editing articles relating to your company. Regarding my edit, I did not remove the content about your company, I simply fixed a circular redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't realise it had been a cut and paste move, so no problem with reverting my edits. Should I remove the speedy deletion tag if I request a merge? Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Just seen you've requested the merge yourself while I was writing the above – thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Richard3120: Actually, sorry, I'm not sure it is a cut/paste move after all. See my second null edit where I explain in my edit summary, I think I made a mistake there. But in any case, just so things are done properly, I've made the merge proposal. Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem – better to make sure it's done properly, anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph, hope you're doing well! Just wanted to reach out to you about your decision to label "gayphobia" as a semantic synonym to "homophobia," since it's not one. a) Homophobia is the fear of all homosexuals. b) Lesbophobia is the fear of all homosexual women. c) Gayphobia is the fear of all homosexual men. Here are some independent and reliable academic sources which explicitly define the term as referring to the hatred of gay men:

• "Homophobia concerns lesbians (lesbophobia), gay men (gayphobia), bisexual people (biphobia), and transgender people (transphobia)," Caroline S. Clauss-Ehlers, Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology (page 524)
• "Gayphobia refers to forms of homophobia that target gay men," University of Lausanne
• "Finally, among specifically gayphobic discourses, we must also mention the issue of AIDS. Significantly, soon after AIDS became known in the early 1980s, it was referred to as the ‘gay cancer,’ as if it were a punishment designed specifically for Sodom… Odious beliefs became widespread: some thought that gay men, as a ‘group as risk,’ should be subject to mandatory screening or tattooing, or quarantined in ‘AIDS-a-toriums.’ Gay men were being punished for their sins; the debauchery of the gay male lifestyle was finally getting its just rewards," Louis-Georges Tin, The Dictionary of Homophobia
• "The Modern Homophobia Scale (Morrison and Morrison, 2002) was administered to evaluate the homophobic behavior. Specifically, it was chosen to analyze gayphobia and lesbophobia separately. It is made of two different formats: one that investigates the homo negative attitudes in the confines of gays (MHS-G) and one against lesbians (MHS-L)," Journal of Clinical & Developmental Psychology

Also, please refer to nearly every available online dictionary definition for the term "gayphobia."

• "Fear, dislike, or hatred of male homosexuals." Definify
• "Fear, dislike, or hatred of male homosexuals." Glosbe
• "Fear, dislike, or hatred of male homosexuals." Your Dictionary
• "Fear, dislike(,) or hatred of male homosexuals." Find Words

All best, Louisianajones1978 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This should be addressed at the article page it relates to, not my talk page. We don't create articles on the basis of dictionary definitions and employer EDI statements. By the way, someone who is gay is not necessarily a man, so, like it or not, the terms are indeed synonymous. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm John B123. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Gut flora, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

John B123 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@John B123: we must have reviewed the page simultaneously, I have re-reviewed it. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've had the same thing happen a couple of times before. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is about a paper entitled "Colonial Origins of Comparative Development". Compare The Nature of the Firm. 98.143.65.225 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done moved the page for you. Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just for future reference, {{uw-blank1}} is a better message template to use than {{uw-delete1}} when someone has completely blanked a page. Similarly with the level 2 templates. — Smjg (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I must have chosen the wrong one in twinkle. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Karthika Deepam" is a telugu language "Karthigai Deepam" is a tamil language "Karthikai Deepam" was the original content "Karthigai Deepam" Or "Karthikai Deepam" is originally originated in tamil literature News proofs for word "Karthigai Deepam"

Times now https://www.timesnownews.com/spiritual/religion/article/karthigai-deepam-2020-date-nakshatra-timings-and-significance/686389

The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/karthigai-deepam-festival-begins-with-flag-hoisting-in-tiruvannamalai/article33140913.ece

Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Karthigai-Deepam

Therefore the "Karthika Deepam" is renaming a festival name is should be "Karthigai Deepam" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickensas (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in that page, but if you want to rename a page, then you must request it at WP:RM. You must not cut/paste content as this will lose the attribution history. This is explained in the message I left on your talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I was merging the articles, I would have thought it was clear what was happening. The Haden Hill House articles was not particularly about the House anyway and it was just a jumble of miscellaneous nonsense. Take the second paragraph 'Within the ground are the Tudor Haden Hall and the Victorian Haden House.' In other words, 'within the house is the house'. And so it goes on, no coherence whatsoever, I cannot think why you wanted to restore it. The article I have authored contains far more information about the park as an entity, including the house itself. Anyway I have re-merged the articles, hope this is OK.

John Price (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pricejb:, as I mentioned the redirect was not done properly, you need to remove all content, and when you are merging per WP:MERGETEXT you need to explicitly state this is what you are doing. I fixed the redirect for you, no problem now. Thanks for your clarification. Polyamorph (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks. John Price (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Polyamorph. One of your comments on the ITN trail discussion was "Please stop policing other users comments. Users have every right to express their feelings.". You might want to think that, but from my last year on Wikipedia, I can tell you that is false. I am currently under a T-ban, and part of my T-ban was me sharing my opinion about things in discussions. I can't talk about them without breaking my t-ban rules, however, I can tell you that sharing your opinion on Wikipedia is actually a way to get banned. Just wanted to let you know that. And no, I won't stop "policing comments" sense I know and am currently feeling the effects that my opinions had. I need to make sure others don't ever fall into the rabbit hole that I did. Hopefully you understand and I would be happy to discuss more about any of this, other than the discussions that led to my T-Ban (Since that would violate my T-Ban). Elijahandskip (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore this comment. I had a discussion on my talk page related to it and I withdraw the entire thing. Instead of a large, stupid looking strike, just leaving this message here for you. You are good to archive this or delete it. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can see why you're t-banned. Polyamorph (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time in reviewing some of the pages I created. Best wishes of good health! Crear2000 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

thanks @Crear2000:, good health to you too. Polyamorph (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, You have removed redirection from Cieszyn dialect to Teschen dialect. I think it is worthy to discuss it. I am personally convinced, that Teschen-version is better, because it 1) goes in line with long usage in English publications 2) avoids Czech-Polish disputes (Cieszyn is Polish version, Těšín is Czech version, Teschen is German version) --Qasinka (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Did I? A Diff would be helpful to know what you are referring to. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Qasinka: I see what you are referring to now (diff). I was undoing a cut/paste move. You cannot simply move pages by cutting and pasting. If you need assistance moving a page then request at WP:RM. Polyamorph (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It was not my editation.--Qasinka (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay...nothing for me to do then. Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that you recently redirected articles into List of Astro Boy characters without actually merging them; none of the information was added into the list page. This constitutes vandalism; please correct your oversight. Yuotort (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now restored the pages of the Astro Boy characters that were deleted through redirection. Do not delete them again without merging their content into the list article, in which case they should each have dedicated, multi-paragraph sections. Yuotort (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Before you start accusing longterm users of vandalism you need to get your facts right. These were not merge closures. The article's do not have independent notability and without adequate sourcing there is nothing to merge. Polyamorph (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"There is nothing to merge"? Did you literally not read the articles?

I will be fixing your "edits" again now; you are free to MERGE the pages. Redirect them again without doing so, and I will issue a formal report against your activity. Yuotort (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: As of now I have merged both of Astro boy's scientist fathers, which should leave this issue adequately addressed. Yuotort (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you will find Rosguill restored the redirects. You are making false and misleading claims, I suggest you stop that. You have much to learn about sourcing. Long standing unsourced content has no place here. Only content backed by reliable sources should be merged. Polyamorph (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The information in question here is factual plot summary from mainstream media, which is not to be mass-deleted so long as it is accurate. Yuotort (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You are reverting the actions of several long-serving editors in good standing, one of whom is an administrator. So perhaps you should stop and consider whether it is actually you who is mistaken here. Plot summaries are fine if they are notable, but in this case they fail WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yuotort, Polyamorph and I have been editing in compliance with our notability guidelines. I don't like pulling rank, but do consider that Polyamorph and I have each individually spent hundreds if not thousands of hours doing this kind of work. We know what we're doing, and from reading your responses above you appear to have some misconceptions about how notability works on Wikipedia. Unless reliable, secondary sources exist that describe a topic in detail, we are not supposed to create articles about that topic, and we should not be merging unsourced content nor content that would give the merge target undue weight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now definitively resolved the issues over this content; none of the characters in question were prominent or popular enough to really needed their own articles. This is not the case with numerous other characters whose coverage has been deleted from this site; this was a very minor and easily solved example of that kind of antagonistic editing, and an early test of the kind of activity I hope to contribute going forward. Cases that I may address in the future will likely include much more extensive ones where vast swathes of information has been excluded. In cases of character summaries on lists, please do not attempt to stop me from reincorporating such information for arbitrary reasons. You did not do so with the information I added to List of Astro Boy characters, so I have no reason to believe your intentions are outright malicious, but I've seen plenty of other cases with outright malicious "editing" by mass-deletion of content, so I'm inclined to feel the need to be clear. Yuotort (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly it would have been best to just carry one without leaving that message. Polyamorph (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you feel that? I wanted to say what I said in the above message because in previous experiences of mine on this site, I have encountered vastly more destructive editing, including active efforts to exclude factual information; if anything you might say I wanted to "vent" even if this wasn't the most relevant place to make my points since our conflict was not very severe and was successfully resolved. Yuotort (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK @Yuotort: One of the fundamental principles here is to assume good faith. But I understand your need to vent so don't worry about it and happy editing! Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Polymorph

Thanks for helping Aidin(name) page to get better. by now I believe Aidin(name) page had been edited enough, duo to Wikipedia policy Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances. I accepted the most recent edits issued to the page, So please remove the copy-editing tag before editors deleting the entire of article's material.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidinshahi (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

the main issues have been addressed, you may remove the tag. Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, Polyamorph!

I saw that you added Template:Undisclosed paid to an article I published yesterday, Treace Medical Concepts. I’ve previously worked in orthopaedics, specifically foot & ankle surgery, and became aware of the company during that time, starting work on creating the article back in August 2020, and have been working on it sporadically since then. I realized this week that the company went public last month, so I worked on the article significantly yesterday to get it published. I have never been paid by, or been in contact with, Treace, so I’m writing to ask for some suggestions so that it doesn’t appear that I’m abusing any Wikipedia policies. I have had a WP:COI previously, which I disclosed on my page, because I’m still semi-new to editing articles and want to go about things the right way.

There was a “Corporate governance” section in the article, which I was a bit hesitant to include, thinking it may make me appear biased; however, I used other medical device company articles as a reference, specifically Stryker Corporation, which has the “Corporate governance” section, which is why I included it in my article. I figured it could always be removed if it other editors thought it wasn’t needed, and it has actually since been removed by another editor, so at least I now know that the Stryker article probably shouldn’t have had it either!

Would you mind giving me some pointers on the article, if you have the time? Like I said, I’m still relatively new at publishing articles, and this was the first article for a public company I’ve ever created (my others have been healthcare-related, as well as a few politicians from my state), and I don’t want to get into any trouble, since I’ve really been enjoying my time editing on Wikipedia.

Any feedback would be really greatly appreciated! I’m just trying to learn :)

Thanks so much! Take care & stay safe! thirsty 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at it with the same intent that you were, however, it does appear that a simple retargeting to Malavika Sharma, as an alt spelling is warranted. Feel free to rev if you think it should go to RfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 The redirect was created following consensus in the 2019 AfD discussion. I've nothing against your retargeting except that may be an attempt to circumvent the AfD. Courtesy ping to @Rosguill: who reverted the recreation of the content last year. Polyamorph (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I saw that as well, but now with the second significant role in Red (2021 film), I felt that she now passes WP:NACTOR, but will definitely yield to you and Rosguill. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, I don't remember any of the details of this case and don't consider myself to have an opinion at the moment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds fine @Onel5969:, but then I think Malvika Sharma is actually her WP:COMMONNAME? Polyamorph (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, not sure where the editor came up with Malavika, since that's not contained in any of them. I would suspect an attempt to get around the AfD, except other than the redirect stuff, the creator of Malavika didn't have anything to do with the earlier article. I would consider a histmerge, but the newer article doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the Malvika article, prior to the AfD conclusion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: TheAafi has swapped the two pages - either of us could have done that ourselves! But I think this is a mistake to have done so given the history at Malavika Sharma and the AfD all relates to the Malvika Sharma spelling. I think a history merge would be appropriate, even though the two pages are significantly different it would be useful to preserve the history at the correct title.Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, It is not always helpful imo though I agree that partial histmerge is warranted. I remember writing Uzair Gul Peshawari and then some editor cut-paste moved it to Uzair GulUzair Gul (even if that was earlier redirected to List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi per AfD) cut-paste move was definitely wrong, and I wouldn't definitely give credit of starting an article to someone else lol. I do not find any substantial history on what is now at the Malavika Sharma title which might've stopped me from swapping the two articles. We can just leave the history there and add "R with history" template. I find this best. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malvika Sharma relates to the content that is now at Malavika Sharma then I think the history should be merged, "R with history" doesn't really work when the history is from a different title. I think Malavika Sharma was either a misspelling or created to circumvent the AfD decision. Eitherway, the old history does not belong there. @Anthony Appleyard: any chance you could do a histmerge? Polyamorph (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, In that case either, it would be partial history-merge? I mean up to this diff. Right? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi, I would agree with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh. MY. God. Polyamorph (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Crocodylidae is the crocodile family, which is why I merged those two articles. Crocodylinae is a sub family within Crocodylidae, which contains a smaller set of crocodile species, which is why I created a separate page for it. I do not wish to merge Crocodylinae with Crocodiles. I suspect you may have just confused the two, since they are nearly the same word. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cougroyalty: I saw your edit summary: "creating article instead of redirect - with the intention of then merging Crocodylidae with the Crocodile article" but I can see now it was Crocodylidae you wanted to merge! You're right, the two words look very similar. I will remove the merge templates. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Cougroyalty (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for editing my talk page yesterday. How do I edit the actual page? thanks--17:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Jim Johnson

Hi @Jimjohnson2222:, the best place to ask questions if you are having problems editing is at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you deleted the U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire page that I created. I am a bit annoyed that this occurred because, no, this section of highway is not "dealt with" in the parent page as you claim, because the parent page does not include a map, an infobox, or most importantly a route log for this portion of U.S. Route 2. The whole reason this page was created was to provide a route log of major intersections, and I have been helping to do this on other pages as well, because I want every mile of U.S. Highway in the country to have a route log. One can see which pages don't have this by looking through the category "Redirects from highway in region". Pages in this category are ones of U.S. Route segments that don't currently have articles, but could in the future. Guess what? The ones that aren't relevant enough to have their own article are already listed in another category: "Redirects from highway in region without possibilities". So with all due respect, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you understand how that works. The redirects in the former category are ones that nobody has gotten around to turning into a full article yet, while the redirects in the latter category are ones that have been agreed should never be made into a full article as they would not be relevant. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Routes/Completion list/1-101. On this page, the routes in green have been "completed" (for a certain U.S. Route, either every state it goes through has a page or the highway is too short to be broken up into separate state pages). One will notice that this article exists to encourage pages like the one I made to be created.

I would also like to address one aspect of the page I created. I only created it as a starting point, not as a finished product, so that is why the route description and history sections were very short and marked as needing to be expanded. I also did this because the primary reason I created the article was for the route log rather than the route description and history, but that isn't grounds for claiming the page is not relevant enough, since it would ideally expand with time. Also, after you reverted my edits, User:Imzadi1979, who is one of the most experienced users in the highway category, naturally came to the parent U.S. Route 2 page to remove the link I added to U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire, saying "since that [U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire] redirects here, it shouldn't be shown yet". I suspect Imzadi1979 didn't know that the page was created and then reverted, rather, Imzadi1979 saw that the parent page was edited and came to check the changes, but noticing that the link just sent the user to a redirect, decided to remove it. But the choice of the word "yet" is interesting, as it hints that in the eyes of users very knowledgeable and experienced on this topic, there is justification for creating this page, but nobody has gotten around to it yet. This seems to go against your claim that it is unjustified to create such a page. So, would you be able to either restore my edits or allow me to do so? Thank you. Azmjc02 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are planning to create independent articles on highways then you need to ensure they satisfy our general notability guidelines. You should not create the article solely as a route log as this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also note that categories, and articles belonging to them, are not a reliable indicator of standalone notability. I would advise you to improve the parent article, unless you provide non trivial reliable sources to demonstrate standalone notability. Polyamorph (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Imzadi1979: for their perspective. Polyamorph (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Azmjc02: Ideally, we should have an article on US 2 in New Hampshire, and I dispute Polyamorph's assessment of the situation, although somewhat I agree with the end result for the moment. Azmjc02, I would advise you that in creating new articles like that, develop the route description section more fully and more quickly. The subarticle needs to have more substance than the parent article, and the junction list table doesn't really count in that regard. You may want to work at Draft:U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire to develop the RD content, which for 35 miles, should be a paragraph or two at a minimum. Once that's ready, move the draft over. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you dispute, surely you agree that standalone articles should be notable in their own right with suitable referencing to non-trivial reliable sources? Polyamorph (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph,

I noticed that I had added several references for Tin Shing Court, Tin Tsz Estate and Tin Yiu Estate articles in order to establish notability. Thank you.

--Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There are references, but I do not see how they establish notability. Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources existed, I appreciate it if you send it to AfD as it only takes a minute to nominate it btw. 180.194.131.51 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources are terrible and mostly relate to the game - the character is not independently notable and is already covered in the redirect target. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Polygon, Destructoid, WashingtonPost existed, including the character's controversy. Not sure neither, but I think the AfD is the best option. Feel free to send it to Afd with the same reason thou. 180.194.131.51 (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll defer that call to a different NPP.Polyamorph (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Polyamorph:
Hope all is well with you. I've been working on the Epsom article over the past few months and I am thinking about submitting it for WP:GA. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the town, but I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look and let me know your thoughts as to how I could improve the article before nomination? I have set up a new section on the talk page for interested parties to discuss what additional work is required. I will ask a few others to chip in with their feedback and suggestions.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This looks really excellent work Mertbiol. There are several mentions of Emily Davison but I wonder if there needs to be a little more detail on her death with a section link to Emily_Davison#Fatal_injury_at_the_Derby. I know there is a road in Tattenham corner that is named after her which could be worth mentioning. Also there is mention of Samuel Pepys visiting the spring, there are several mentions of Epsom in his diaries found here (he uses the spelling Epsum), might be worth mentioning. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Polyamorph: I have added some additional material to the article to address the points that you have made.

It's difficult to know how much detail to include about Emily Davison's death, as there is the obvious risk of simply duplicating the relevant section in the main article about her. Having said that, I think that the single sentence that I had included in the History section was too brief. I hope that the new paragraph strikes the right balance.

For Pepys' visits to Epsom in 1663 and 1667, I have added footnotes containing the extracts from the relevant entries from his diary. IMHO, his descriptions of the spa are not particularly informative, whereas the contemporary accounts written by Booth, Aubrey, Osborne and Fiennes are much more useful to modern readers.

Please let me know what you think. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. Cheers. Polyamorph (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Polyamorph,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Polyamporph,

I just wanted to ask why you opened Kala/Cala for discussion? You noted it was "clearly not uncontroversial" and as I understand it, the general way to handle controversial moves is to revert the move, and leave the onus on the person who wants to make the move to get consensus for it? In case it was unclear, the title prior to the 26th was "Cala, Eastern Cape", which is the title I requested the article be reverted to. BilledMammal (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Technical moves is for uncontroversial requests. While we can also revert undiscussed moves, I'm not going to involve myself into your revert war. You need to discuss this and other related moves with Desertambition. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, one section is for controversial requests; asking to revert an undiscussed move is by definition controversial, as there is at least one person who disputes it. Further, I actually specified "discuss = no", so it's a little problematic that you "fixed" the parameter rather than merely closing the request if you believed it inappropriate - if I was going to open an RM, I would prefer to write for an RM, rather than writing for reverting an undiscussed move. BilledMammal (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You really need to discuss these moves at the relevant talk pages. I opened an RM, I did not feel another revert appropriate at this time. Your choice is to either discuss this move or forget about it. Polyamorph (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree with your decision to that it was not appropriate to revert to the stable title, it was a "proper" decision and so I will contest that through the RM. However, what I do have an issue with is you editing my comment to change "no" to "yes"; I feel that was an inappropriate action. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing a template parameter is not inappropriate. I changed that to create the discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel it is inappropriate when changing the template parameter changes the meaning of the comment away from what was intended. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about your unilateral move reverts and aversion to discuss such moves with involved parties, but c'est la vie. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree that a standalone list of New Zealand monarchs article is unhelpful. I can see why you would think that but I have posted on Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand.Wilso113598 (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The content of these 2 phrases is different (cf Global ceasefire vs Ceasefire), plus ’European‘ (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/European https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/european?q=European +++) ≠ ‘EU’. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 03:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
UK citizens don't have European citizenship, 'cause they live on an island???!??☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 04:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you on about, makes no sense whatsoever.Polyamorph (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Say, e.g., I/U/whoever live in Molivia, read the article (“EC”), cross some water (or whatever) arrive in, say, Boscow, and no EU citizenship (miau), or in other words, both “European’ and ‘Citizenship’ have a well established meaning (cf. American Citizenship/African Citizenship?!?)☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 07:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

you don't appear to have a good enough level of competency in English. Polyamorph (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Polyamorph,
Thank you so much for reviewing so promptly the article on Terry Roberts (novelist and educator), which our colleague Wendy moved into mainspace only yesterday; your help is much appreciated! Thank you also for all your other contributions to our encyclopaedia.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 10:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Patrick for your kind message. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Polyamorph:
Hope all is well with you. I've been working on the Leatherhead article over the past few months and I am thinking about submitting it for WP:GA soon. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the town, but I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look and let me know your thoughts as to how I could improve the article before nomination please?
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: That is truly excellent, I do know Leatherhead but you have written a pretty exhaustive article there, I don't have anything to add. Well done, definitely GA worthy. Polyamorph (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Polyamorph:. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Polyamorph:, your swift review of the new Wikipedia entry is highly appreciated. I hope i shall be able to complete the article with what you think is missing. Thanks for sharing some more details of what you would like to see and I will try to fix it accordingly.

Regards Bibliophilen (talk)

Hello @Bibliophilen:. The article needs more secondary sources to demonstrate that the person satisfies our notability criteria, see WP:BIO. Please add sources that are independent of the subject. Polyamorph (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Polyamorph:,Ericson-Ericson Lorentz-Lorenz correction is a phenomenon that is not so easy to explain in a few lines in general terms—still it is a very important effect in nuclear physics. This is clearly refelected in literature. I will sit down with some professors, specialized in the field. next week to improve the current text and hopefully meet your expectations.

Regards Bibliophilen (talk)

@Bibliophilen: I understand, I felt more detail is needed to clarify its importance and notability in the wider field of particle physics. Polyamorph (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Polyamorph,

the effect is well-known and has had impact:

The notability is apparent, see Ref.  2, which is the book Pions and nuclei, an invited monograph in  the prestigious Clarendon Press, an imprint of Oxford University Press,  International Series of Monographs on Physics, cited nearly 2000 times. The book has also been translated into Russian. As you know this monograph series is considered "gold standard".  

The EELL effect itself has been referred to about 800 times elsewhere and occurs prominently in different contexts in four of the chapters of the monograph discussed above.

Here follows a description of the impact of the monograph series:

(Source: https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/i/international-series-of-monographs-on-physics-ismp/?cc=ch&lang=en&)

“The Oxford University Press  International Series of Monographs on Physics has been one of the pre-eminent series in the subject since its foundation in 1930 under the editorship of Fowler and Kapitza. It began with the famous books by Dirac and by Van Vleck, and went on to publish the works of many of the century's great physicists. “

The notability is apparent from many annual and other reviews and  the effect has also found its place in text books.

It is noteworthy that quarks are not much relevant for this long wave length effect without sensitivity to short ranged physics on the nuclear scale. Although it is connected to particle physics in the chiral limit it is much more notable in many-body and nuclear physics.

I appreciate that this is much of "Oxford University Press blurb", but hope this is sufficient to make you consider to remove the tag:

{{notability}}

Best regards ~~~ Bibliophilen (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift reaction.

~~~ Bibliophilen (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Now added to the redirects for deletion due to the misspelling - 'h' missing. Financefactz (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've seen that you reverted my edits, just a small thank you. I did not know that there was a redirect of the same name, article I meant to move was deleted, which re-directed it to the original article.--Pink Saffron (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

another one? I've only just finished the first 7 layers. Maybe I'll leave a layer, so it's 7&6. Polyamorph (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Polyamorph,

If you are moving a page that has redirects to it, please leave a redirect from the old page title to the new one. This happened early this morning after all of the tennis page moves and if another admin, Explicit, hadn't changed each page, AnomieBOT would have deleted all of those broken redirects. If you leave a redirect from the old to new page name, then one of our other bots will change the redirects to point to the new location. This is especially true if you are correcting for a bad move page move...unfortunately, bots immediately change redirects to point to the new, bad title, but they only correct them back to the better title if you leave a redirect in its place, from the bad title to the better one.

Just something for all page movers to think about when considering whether to leave a redirect during a page move. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for letting me know. Those pesky bots being helpful. Polyamorph (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Polyamorph! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, you marked this as reviewed, but it's a definite cut and paste move. I've reverted it, but thought you'd like to know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure how I missed that. Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph! Merry Christmas to you too. I'm not good with templates, so all I have to offer is this hand-written note. I thank you for your help too, and for being so kind to me back when I was just an IP. If not for you, I'd probably had never created this account in the first place. I hope your holiday will be wonderful, and may the new year bring good fortune and joy. (And maybe a little less pandemic.) To you and yours. Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Zaereth. I was ill over Christmas with flu (not covid, still managed to escape that so far!). So the festivities kind of just went by and I missed most of it! Feeling much better now. Its nice to know I helped you decide to create an account 14 years ago which can't have been too long after I'd created my own. Here's to another year! Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but I'm glad you're feeling better. It's bad enough being sick, but always seems worse to have to deal with it over the holidays. I had Covid back in 2018; back before it was even popular. Back when it was just called SARS. That's what I spent Christmas doing that year, and I didn't fully recover until February. Zaereth (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Polyamorph,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.