Aoidh
| This is the user talk page for Aoidh. |
|
Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days  )
2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2025 |
Relating to an AfD you closed
editWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_11#Prisca_Singamo. LibStar (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Suspicious "VASTSUGARPALEO"
editSomehow he's vandalizing parazoa to add nonsense, block him now please! 2001:1308:2729:5700:17A:7DA3:29E2:BD42 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough about that subject to comment on this. It may be a form of vandalism (such as hoaxing or subtle vandalism), or it may be a good faith but inaccurate attempt to improve the article, which is not vandalism. I would suggest discussing it on the article's talk page and explaining why you feel those changes are inaccurate, using WP:DR as necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Titles of websites
editI recently saw your "undo" of my edits to SparkyLinux. While I partially understand your reason (and I'll try to be more careful), I believe that only some of the edits were not acceptable. Rather than erasing the efforts of other editors, please consider editing the few edits you find unacceptable. WP is a collaborative process. Wasting another editor's time and effort is disrespectful (admittedly, to varying degrees).
As to your rationale for the edit-undo: Remember that the style you have cited is for sites that have a defined name for the site. For example, my mistake for "Distrowatch.com" should not have the ".com" but "ZDNet.com" is appropriate because ZDNet is not merely a website. A better example is "SparkyLinux" (no TLD ".com") is the operating system/software name, whereas sparkylinux.org (or camel case: SparkyLinux.org) is the website itself.--SidP (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- ZDNet.com is not appropriate for that parameter, as it is not the name of that site. That ZDNet has non-website aspects does not mean that the title of that website is not ZDNET. If you visit ZDNet's website, they do not call themselves ZDNet.com, nor do most reliable sources that discuss that site. Compare this to a site like Go.com, where the domain is part of the established name. Viewing a revert as disrespect is an unnecessary personalization, and I don't believe anyone who reverts an edit due to substantive issues with that edit is trying to disrespect anyone, they're focusing on the content. However, I have reintroduced the two added parameters that were missing, but the other changes were not improvements to those citations, per Template:Cite web#Title. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly you did not review all of the changes, as the version of the operating system was also updated, and there is a broken reference. Initially that was the reason I chose to edit the page. Perhaps your attitude about taking the easiest route and merely undo'ing someone else's edits is viewed as impersonal, but I think you are not realizing that without a careful view of all changes, even one good content modification can get lost in efforts to change several housekeeping preferences. I have no problem being edited, and I welcome actual correx. But I also expect a thoughtful WP editor will be less interested in reversing all efforts. The key here is improving the article. --SidP (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is referring to this newer edit now, not the one that was initially being discussed. That edit was also reviewed, and I did indeed notice that it replaced the data pulled from Wikidata (Wikidata:Q3896010) with an unsourced date posted directly on the article with no explanation as to why that Wikidata link was removed. That date and reference should be updated via Wikidata (with a source) so that there is a central point for all versions of that article across various languages to pull from so that updating that one entry will update all other versions of that article that use that data. Please keep unnecessary personal commentary (e.g.
Clearly you did not review all of the changes
andyour attitude about taking the easiest route
) out of any further discussion, as they are both inaccurate and unnecessary. It was reverted because it was not an improvement, not because of the ease of doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)- Adherence to source methods that provide broken references is much more important than adherence to user-unfriendly (I'd say esoteric) template formatting. I urge you to remember the collaborative spirit of WP as well as the ability for someone else to make the appropriate edit. Perhaps instead of being so quick to reverse edits that another user has invested time and effort to make, you can make the formal formatting you desire. WP is not perfect. We rely on each other to improve articles. You seem so invested in patrolling for specific restrictions instead of constructively do the editing. Please reconsider your attitude and actions to be accommodating to those less knowledgeable about your preferences.--SidP (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- @SidP: The edits were reverted because they were not constructive and did not improve the article, not because of anyone else's attitude or preferences. The parts of those edits that did improve the article were reintroduced, so I'm really unclear why I'm still being badgered about the revert. I understand that the Wikidata template is unusual, but removing the template (which includes the source) and replacing it without a source is
taking the easiest route
. Continuing to unnecessarily personalize comments with inaccurate accusations after being asked to stopis disrespectful
. If these are such concerns, consider that they should not only apply to others. Because of the nature of the continuing comments, this discussion is not productive. It is also a complaint about something that has already been addressed. I think it's time for us to both move on to more productive things. I'll keep your comments in mind, thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- @SidP: The edits were reverted because they were not constructive and did not improve the article, not because of anyone else's attitude or preferences. The parts of those edits that did improve the article were reintroduced, so I'm really unclear why I'm still being badgered about the revert. I understand that the Wikidata template is unusual, but removing the template (which includes the source) and replacing it without a source is
- Adherence to source methods that provide broken references is much more important than adherence to user-unfriendly (I'd say esoteric) template formatting. I urge you to remember the collaborative spirit of WP as well as the ability for someone else to make the appropriate edit. Perhaps instead of being so quick to reverse edits that another user has invested time and effort to make, you can make the formal formatting you desire. WP is not perfect. We rely on each other to improve articles. You seem so invested in patrolling for specific restrictions instead of constructively do the editing. Please reconsider your attitude and actions to be accommodating to those less knowledgeable about your preferences.--SidP (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is referring to this newer edit now, not the one that was initially being discussed. That edit was also reviewed, and I did indeed notice that it replaced the data pulled from Wikidata (Wikidata:Q3896010) with an unsourced date posted directly on the article with no explanation as to why that Wikidata link was removed. That date and reference should be updated via Wikidata (with a source) so that there is a central point for all versions of that article across various languages to pull from so that updating that one entry will update all other versions of that article that use that data. Please keep unnecessary personal commentary (e.g.
- Clearly you did not review all of the changes, as the version of the operating system was also updated, and there is a broken reference. Initially that was the reason I chose to edit the page. Perhaps your attitude about taking the easiest route and merely undo'ing someone else's edits is viewed as impersonal, but I think you are not realizing that without a careful view of all changes, even one good content modification can get lost in efforts to change several housekeeping preferences. I have no problem being edited, and I welcome actual correx. But I also expect a thoughtful WP editor will be less interested in reversing all efforts. The key here is improving the article. --SidP (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Serrano. I was wondering if you could re-open and relist it given there's a current discussion about a source used ongoing at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"Leyendas del Fondismo" YouTube channel? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Habst: Given the direction that discussion is going, I don't think relisting the AfD is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Bot account
editCan you please confirm that you are operating AoidhBot? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Jlwoodwa: No, that's not me. It looks to be the LTA that's fixated on that article, the timing fits their MO and they've tried that before. I've indefinitely protected that article since they've established that they're just going to go back to vandalizing it the day protection expires. Thanks for checking. - Aoidh (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)