User talk:Blindlynx

Welcome Blindlynx!

You been around for awhile, technically longer than I have. Hope you stay longer this time! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  21:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Thanks for the welcome! Welcome back i guess :P. It honestly feels good to be welcomed, I tend to get disillusioned and feel unwelcome on wiki becasue of people here always dismissing any correction or suggestion i make as "Ukrainian nationalism" and insinuating that as a Ukrainian i have no right to talk about my language, country, history or whatever else on here. Blindlynx (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes it seems to take a great amount of intestinal fortitude to live in this world, to search for what you like and can't find, and to edit this encyclopedia. It's like my uncle used to tell me when I worked on cars, "If you don't shed some blood, it won't work right." Same goes for editing Wikipedia I guess. Just always remember that this job is a volunteer position, so there is always a lot of time and room to have lots of fun! So have fun with it. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked my opinion about the article Reg Hartt. It's horribly written and needs a rewrite. Some of the references are to newspapers, which seems good, but I haven't checked the actual reference text to see what they say about him. RJFJR (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I'd like to thank you, as a Circassian, for acknowledgeing the real side of events in the discussion. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ (Псалъэ) 14:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I have started a thread you might be interested in at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Belarusian_geographical_place_names,_Part_2. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacques Parizeau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Québécois.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your earlier inquiry, I just did a few searches and just looking at the early 100s archives I found the following:

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_107#National_spelling_variation:_Retaining_the_existing_variety
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_109#WP:RETAIN_-_restore_original_point_of_first_contributor_rule
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_117#Revising_WP:RETAIN
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#Does_WP:RETAIN_go_too_far?

Scanning through search results there are many more, something like n+1 total discussions where n is some biggish number, so I hope you like reading. If you really want I can look into it some more but it would be rather time consuming, and tbh I found much of it to be tedious. As I've said before my own opinion is that readers largely will neither notice nor care if there's some style variation within an article, and if someone adds a well-researched paragraph it shouldn't matter what style it's written in, but obviously that view doesn't have consensus. It's impossible to enforce anyway; 80%+ of articles have few watchers and most casual contributors don't know anything about our MOS and are just going to contribute in whatever variety their browsers spell-checker happens to be set to. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! after reading some of this I agree that it's probably going to go unnoticed, but probably not worth trying to change—blindlynx (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the issues you see around POV in this article so they can be addressed. (The tag alone is of limited help.) Thanks! Clean Copy^talk 09:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

blindlynx: I have a serious objection to the question you just posted on "Talk:Robert's_Rules_of_Order". You ask: "Do you genuinely not understand how editions of a book work?"

• a) I cannot tell if your question is meant to be rhetorical or if you meant to prompt an answer.
• b) I cannot tell if the question is meant as sarcasm or meant to be understood as straight.
• c) If it is rhetorical, I have no idea what rhetorical point the question is trying to make.
• d) If you are hoping for an answer, I have no idea how I could possibly answer. You have not said what point about "how editions work" you think I am missing, so I cannot realize my mistake and answer by acknowledging that I had missed that thing. You have not said what in my statement makes you think I am missing something, I actually have no idea. You have not indicated how my apparent understanding of "how editions work" differs from yours, so I cannot possibly point out to you what I might think you are missing.

Your question seems to be along the lines of: this is so obvious how could we possibly descend so far as to explain it to you. Well, it really, honestly, not sarcastically, is not obvious to me. Please, please, explain. Natefin (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being grating. It was a rhetorical statement along the line of—as you put it—this is so obvious how could we possibly descend so far as to explain it to you. Your line of reasoning in our discussion seemed premised on a different understanding of literary editions than in typically used. Normally editions are seen as iterations of the same book while your reasoning seemed to present them as different books in a series. Books are typically discussed without regard for edition unless there is some specific reason to mention and edition or compare editions—blindlynx 15:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand better now, but still not completely. Whether "Robert's Rules of Order" and "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised" are the same book, different books in a series, or just different books, depends on how we are defining our words. Ditto for RRO and "Robert's Rules of Order the Modern Edition". And how do "... Newly Revised" and "... the Modern Edition" relate to one another?. This is not to get into a debate on the article, just to clarify what we mean by our words. I could accept almost any answer, but I really do not know which is your answer and which you think is my answer. Natefin (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if i'm wrong: you seem to see them as different books in a series, where as my understanding is that they are iterations of the same book—blindlynx 16:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see them as different books in that one can be "official" while another is not. Whether there is a generally "official" book, or can each association decide which book is official for them, seems to be in dispute. Natefin (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Against edit conflicts, I use Firefox. Why? By pushing the "back" arrow I go back to my edit, I select and copy it, quit the page, then I can reinsert it into the talk page through pasting it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! good to know—blindlynx 00:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Justin McElroy (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin McElroy (journalist). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blindlynx! I saw that you supported updating the title of this article to Haudenosaunee in a move request last year, and I'm happy to say, we've made the request once again! This time however, those in support for change are currently in the lead.

With that said, the vote closes on Sunday, Nov 27, so there's still time for this to change. i.e. every vote of support matters.

Here's a link to the move request if you'd like to support updating title again: Talk:Iroquois#Requested move 20 November 2022

Thank you! OddlyOaktree (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OddlyOaktree: while i saw this after i supported your move it's inappropriate to notify just people who you think will support you of discussions, see: WP:CANVASS—blindlynx 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I am still learning the ropes here, so I appreciate you sharing that link, as well as the welcome message on my talk page! I'll give it a read. Thank you! OddlyOaktree (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it i started editing because of similar things and the sheer number or rules convention and what-have-you is overwhelming at first...not to mention all teh bloody acronyms and abreviations. I'm sure you'll figure it all out in no time though—blindlynx 20:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for edit warring.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=submit Wuerzele (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blindlynx is not edit warring, he only edited Anthroposophy page on november 14 and november 22, thats only 1 edit on both days, how ever it appears that you are edit warring at Anthroposophy. Chip3004 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for the lovely picture! Unfortunately where i live i have to kill eponymous but ive always thought they are beautiful. It's funny, during early experiences seriously editing i nearly gave up because of some decidedly unpleasant behaviour after i stumbled into the infobox wars. Hopefully all that is behind us—blindlynx 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The European variety seems less aggressive. - Did you see the other pics (click on songs)? Did you see the promising answers of the candidates? We don't have wars anymore, but I really want peace, not just the absence of war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and native ones too but they're hard to find for a bunch of reasons. I did! i can't wait to be out that way again and see some of those places in person, i haven't had a chance to listen to the songs yet. I've made my mind up over a few of them, i trust you have as well? It hurts that peace feels like a pipe dream right now given everything—blindlynx 16:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits are you concerned about? —blindlynx 18:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your most recent edits you have removed a lot of sourced content from Afro-Asians without explanation on either the talk page or edit summaries. It would be helpful if you explained why; as it is the risk that you get reverted is, I would imagine, quite high. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now provided explanation - thank you :-) Dorsetonian (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i mistakenly thought the discussion on the fringe notice board was linked to on the talk page already —blindlynx 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding and clarifying! Dorsetonian (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I don't know if there are a way to discuss the three RM on a single talk page. Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey! This explains it WP:RMPM if you're curious—blindlynx 15:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DNR/LNR is a WP:COMMONNAME so I think it is better to have separate RM. And for Kherson/Zaporizhia? Panam2014 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia only have occupation pages no?—blindlynx 13:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the areas have been annexed. We need a RfC about the five regions, no? Panam2014 (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never had ostensibly civilian administrations that are notable in their own right—blindlynx 13:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those of Crimea and DNR/LNR are not really civilian. Panam2014 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i know, but they are distinct enough—blindlynx 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what? Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in the sense that they are notable as entities and the occupation is notable —blindlynx 15:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the welcome on my talkpage and for the lively and respectful discussion on pages regarding sensitive topics! I greatly appreciate all of your help!

AevumNova (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well for engaging respectfully, discussions about this particular topic area gets uncomfortable in a hurry unfortunately and this is been a pleasant change. Sorry to keep linking policies but there're a tonne of them and it takes forever to get your bearings with them. I look forward to working together on here. (btw one of the babel templates on your user page is a redlink)—blindlynx 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! And yes, unfortunately Kiowa is not currently supported. But I left a message on the talk page for the Babel templates and they are aware of it now :) AevumNova (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

amazing!—blindlynx 22:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 3cy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § 3cy until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help with this move - as it is a species name, please would you decapitalise the second word to Panchlora nivea. Roy Bateman (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you're going to have to get a WP:G6 for that—blindlynx 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV_claims regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RBut (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you recently moved a page to Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver, claiming it was TO a "Perform requested move, see talk page". However, there was no move request on the talk page, the last move request there was from 10 years ago and was turned down, the last edit of any kind on the talk page was from a year-and-a-half before the page got the name you moved it from. As such, you may at least want to add a comment to the page noting the reasons for the move... which admittedly was WP:POINTy (and yet, not wrong.. well, except in capitalization.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler sorry, I was reverting an undiscused move—blindlynx 16:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler i've added a section to that talk page, thanks for mentioning it, i misunderstood the premade move reason—blindlynx 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add a blank space before a <ref> tag, as you did in this edit. The ref tag should butt right up against the preceding word or punctuation, no spaces. If it happens to occur at the end of a sentence, then it would be after the final dot, like this.^[1] (Same thing goes for {{sfn}} templates, or any other kind of citation template not embedded between ref tags.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i didn't touch the ref and have no idea what happened there—blindlynx 01:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using Visual Editor or something? The diff shows it changing during your edit, one way or another, however that happened. But no worries, you fixed it; thanks very much for that; it's all good now. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter, thanks for letting me know!16:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC) —blindlynx 16:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Raspberry Ukraine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 5 § Raspberry Ukraine until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how's it going? I hope you're alright. Yesterday I uploaded an image of this sign in Kyiv: File:Ukranian correction in Kyiv.jpg. From what I understand, it's a correction from Russian to Ukranian spelling.

I thought about including it in the Derussification in Ukraine article, but I don't speak Russian (or Ukranian) and I was hoping to ask you for more context before. What do you think? Many thanks in advance! NoonIcarus (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus hello! It's a correction from Russian to Ukrainian of 'don't be a punk'... it's kinda slangly.

I think it's worth including because it's a good picture, what it actually says doesn't really matter—blindlynx 17:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blindlynx: Glad to hear that! It caught my eye, but I honestly wasn't sure if it could be included in an article. I added the image with the caption "Correction of a graffiti in Kyiv from Russian to Ukrainian spelling", as well as in the Ukranian version. Feel free to correct it if you think the wording should be changed. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me—blindlynx —blindlynx 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Blindlynx

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Recently you seem to have updated article Religious clothing. (this info was ascertained from draft related changes from menu bar)

Requesting your visit to Tashabbuh (still a draft in my userspace) and help expand and copy-edit the topic areas, once in while, if you find topic interesting.

Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]