User talk:NekoKatsun/Archive 1

4303:

their own real life cause, not because their content is really important to my bio. None of what they post on my page (yes, not “my” page but the page about me) is ever neutral or complete, but without fail is biased, misrepresentation, cherry picked or out and out false. I’ve read many of the WP rules applicable to biography of a living person and controversial matters that might be defamatory are extremely disfavored as are edits by COI persons involved with the subject in real life controversy (controversy made and perpetuated by these COIs). Please have a look at the creation and history of edits. Who are the two persons who come to WP only to edit my page and focus mostly on the “lawsuits” section or try by innuendo to undermine the basic story of my round the world flight. I’m happy actually that the page is protected but it’s been reverted to a version that has the heavy hand of these COI and sockpuppet persons. I’m very transparent, disclosing who I am and not hiding behind a pseudonym. I was in the middle of an extensive edit then found I was blocked when I tried to publish it. I’m happy to have guidance from a neutral and experienced WP editor like yourself and if you look over my talk page I have refrained from editing myself and asked for help on many occasions, with only limited success. I’m also not so particularly sensitive to writing on the subject of litigation I’m involved in. Actually, civil lawsuits are fairly boring but I won’t tolerate these few people repeatedly vandalizing my page with half-truths and distortions, that make it seem like My around the world record is being challenged. I think you may get it and help with a viable solution that serves the interests of WPs audience. Thank you, Julie Wang

3125:? OMG, I feel like a preschooler who tried to educate an adult about language. So, you taught me a valuable lesson. Now I realize that I wasted too much time on all those imperfections of the English language. What I really need is to get fluent. While writing this post to you I check all possible errors by means of Google, because I want to be perfect ;-) It's funny, right? But several years ago, when my English was very poor, I was able to write five (in my opinion correct and natural) sentences during five hours :-) Okay, now I am writing off the top of my head. So, when I was a kid I used to make lots of language errors. But interestingly, I can't remember whether my parents ever tried to point them out. Then, how is it that, somehow, I have mastered my native language 2647: 616:

changed since our last fire fight on the subject and given that I am not aware of any other books on the subject, it is unlikely to change - the books have happily sat there until Sock decided to move them. The reference to media related to Mount Everest is irrelevant - this is specifically about Everest '96 - as are the books which were previously there. I sense you see yourself as some grandiose editor who won't even listen to the views of a person who was there in '96. I politely ask for mention of the books to be reinstated. At least I will feel then that filmgoers who want to know more about the facts can be pointed in the right direction.

3752:, which are terms that probably confuse almost everybody at first, and even well after, so that's really quite understandable. But you were missing some key aspects of the definition that would be familiar to someone who, say, had been editing articles about transgender issues, and rather than have a tentative tone about it, you came across as quite self-assured, making at least one categorical statement about it that was wildly off, and needed an explanation that didn't come across as in any way tentative, hence, words like "false" above. If that seemed overly harsh, I apologize, but I thought it seemed merited, given the situation. 4329:. Reviewing the article as it stands, it appears that the "Lawsuits" section is fairly thoroughly sourced and honestly sounds pretty neutral - from reading the article, it sounds like you completed a flight, were ceremonially granted the award, but not actually paid; meanwhile, another woman completed a flight in a similar timeframe but may not have been truly solo, and lawsuits resulted from both of these. Is that an accurate description? What of that is 'biased, misrepresentation, cherry picked or out and out false'? Give specifics on the article talkpage, with sources to support your claims. 4537:

links instead of simply potholing, and your formatting was overall poor (such as the insertion of "" as you presumably copied and pasted from somewhere similarly sourced to Knowledge, and then didn't bother removing the notes that should be references). As a new user, the formatting isn't much of an issue; that can be cleaned up, and I'm sure in time you'll learn the ins and outs of inter-wiki linking. However, as noted in the article, you need a reliable source that contradicts the MLM descriptor to remove that, and even then I'd suggest discussing it on the talkpage of the article first.

2597: 1998: 1371: 2590: 2583: 1160: 31: 1236: 551:

books written about the disaster they must be relevant source material. The page relating to the film is currently sterile and fails to direct its readers to factual source material. This could well lead to filmgoers having to rely on the film's account alone rather than being able to compare the depiction with accounts written by this who were there at the time in 1996. Is there some obscure reason why you are seeking to restrict genuine, and "good faith" source material?

3522: 3437: 941: 1950: 3203: 2775: 3969: 2884: 2248: 1378: 4612: 3351: 2605: 2417: 2044: 1642: 1569: 1525: 4007: 3893: 3979: 2894: 2512: 2502: 2258: 1717: 3290: 1200: 4562: 4594: 326: 1771:

and the two dog teams on 13th February, and was kept in camp by bad weather until 19th, when Crean reached the Hut and brought in the news of my breakdown and collapse at Corner Camp. A blizzard precluded a start for the purpose of relieving me, but this expedition was undertaken immediately the weather abated. It was only during a temporary clear that Lashly and I were rescued.

517:

simply stated that the book provided facts about what the film shows - the same as the other books quoted on the page. I can't see why it's publication date matters therefore because it simply adds to the facts.. Particularly since none of the other books describe the coordination efforts in detail which include three of the film's main characters Cotter/Wilton/McKenzie (sp

481:- unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise, though I doubt it as the book was published after the movie's filming began. Honestly, and please accept this in good faith, your edits came across as very promotional - like you're the book's author, or the owner of that lone review (five stars, incidentally) on Amazon. I get how it could be seen as relevant to the 2221:

looking into a strange non-Euclidean space... but regardless, if they want to keep pushing this, then they can bring some actual sources (preferably correctly formatted, I know it's a forlorn hope, but a Wikipede can dream) and learn how to apply them. And if not, then I guess the Coastguard will be hearing about one of us reverting them.

4473:

Hi, you need at least three reliable third-party sources. The company's website is not a third-party source; D&B and Open Corporate simply state that they exist, which does not establish notability. As far as I can tell this company is entirely non-notable. Are there any news articles about them?

4421:

Not particularly. Plot summaries are generally edited for length, so if a character (such as Nitara) doesn't have a significant driving role, not mentioning her is typical. If you want to try rewriting the plot summary to include all the named characters while staying under the recommended word count

4302:

Hi NekoKatsun, I’m reaching out for help in getting this page straightened out. There have been constant attacks by one or two conflicted persons with whom I am in litigation with in real life. These people put the “lawsuit” section there in the first place. Their purpose is only to use it to promote

3103:

a native English speaker, and if you'll excuse my tooting my own horn, one with several accolades in the language. Wanting to make your English perfect is an admirable goal, but if you want to sound like a natural speaker of the language, insisting on archaic forms is not going to earn you any credit

3071:

Some language errors can ONLY be detected but not prevented. They can be detected ONLY by people like me ;-) Instead of guessing the intended meaning from the context we can use a bit of logic and remove ambiguity. After all, language is a tool for communication, and clear and effective communication

3034:

Ah, one of these. Language evolves, and much like the split infinitive, the misplaced modifier is ignored in common English. Most people are intelligent enough to get the meaning of a sentence from context clues and the unnatural specificity isn't required, as it just makes the sentence more awkward.

2707:

Another main source for this section is the Sports Illustrated writer Tex Maule, who described Liston's shoulder as "paralyzed", stating that he couldn't hold it above "belt level". Both of these points are currently in the article. Yet, the following video shows Liston landing a stiff jab that snaps

1770:

What actually happened was this. Stores were landed by those at the base station on the re-arrival of the "Terra Nova," and Atkinson, who was the senior member of those not now returning in her to civilisation, took over the dogs according to Scott's directions. He proceeded to Hut Point with Dimitri

1043:

But Melos, if there were an appropriate secondary source that gave his name, it could indeed be included in the article. You can't keep it out just because some people don't want it there; that's not how Knowledge works. Incidentally, Sonorra is now deleting sourced information about the confession.

668:

trying to listen to your views, though I admit to being upset at being called 'grandiose' and having perfectly legitimate edits called vandalism, and I apologize if I came off as rude or hotheaded. I am trying to work with you and assume good faith - please, do me the courtesy of returning the favor.

615:

I would also hope that those going to watch the film won't rely on the film alone but Sock, and tacitly yourself, having agreed with his edit, have removed the literary sources which the filmgoers can turn to seek facts from those who were there at the time. The list of books about Everest '96 hasn't

550:

You bizarrely seem to have gone full circle by now deleting all mention of books which give the background to the Everest film when even during your previous issues with "The Storms", you were content to keep mention of the other books in place. Clearly if the characters in the film are mentioned in

512:

But most importantly I suggest you read the book before dismissing its relevance. I also have an interest in the 1996 storm and feel qualified to comment, because I was on the mountain in one of the teams - what do you base your knowledge on? It is one of the reasons I have read Trueman's book (as

413:

I hadn't seen that. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I did review your edit, and while I do feel like most of the changes you've proposed are unneeded, I can certainly let this go. I'd also like to mention that my number of edits to the FNaF pages are... well, a little irrelevant; there's no need

4196:

De Staandard is a major Belgian newspaper. The article is written in Dutch, but it clearly describes the event and the death that was the result of it as bizzare and unusual: "Voor Tom Lanoye vormt het voorval de inspiratie van zijn nieuwe novelle, Heldere Hemel. Maar dit is het echte verhaal." This

3822:

Totally fair. I was taking the approach that as they'd been warned and were continuing, it fell under vandalism, and exceeding 3RR is acceptable in removing such. They were told to add a source in the edit summary, but you're right, I could've been more proactive in leaving clearer warnings on their

3670:

I appreciate your notice, though I don't see where in the discretionary sanctions it says that 1RR is in effect (or anything similar)? Also, my general understanding of BRD is that when a change is challenged - by my first revert - it's the onus of the changing editor to take it to the talkpage, and

3259:

One of the issues with the photo you put in the header is that its copyright status is unclear. It's from a newscast (as indicated by the logo in the corner), which does not make it free to use on Knowledge. If NASA had released its own photo, it would be usable, as it would be in the public domain,

1092:

Hey, no problem. :) I did a cursory check for references, as mentioned above, and the only places I could find the boy's name were forum posts - clearly not appropriate sources. I agree, though, if an appropriate secondary source could be found, then his name could be included. Until then, I support

763:

No, it's not better. You added another news source. I'm pretty sure if the tallest mountain in the world DID shrink, it would be a huge thing in the scientific world. Yet, the height of Mount Everest in all possible scientific sources remains the same. FYI, satellites cannot measure with accuracy of

516:

In respect of the Everest film you will see, if you read The Storms, that Trueman coordinated the rescue in 1996 and worked with Guy Cotter at Base Camp, . This is totally relevant to film watchers as it gives them the facts. I didn't claim in my original edit that the film was based on the book - I

4100:

Bruh why you reverted my edits🤔 As you know India supports freedom of speech and expression it's not a crime to attend a event of a Nationalist Party in India. So why you reverted my edits? Because it should not be considered as a controversy as it is clearly a Personal Choice. If some people will

3799:

but I've decided instead to add another warning about 3RR and edit warring as the IP may not be familiar with such rules and you haven't told the IP about this in your 3 warnings, this as well-intentioned editors are also liable to face a block if they haven't warned or talked with the user before.

3722:

NekoKatsun, thanks for your message. Hm; regarding tone, that is certainly not my intention and I apologize if that's the case. I'll go easier with you in the future. Please don't be scared of me, lol, I don't bite! In general, I try to modulate my tone to the situation, and also in consideration

2320:

I'm incredibly pleased to see all parties - Hedgie included - staying polite and not resorting to name-calling, inappropriate threats, or anything of the sort. I'm also very happy to see just how much good faith we've assumed towards Hedgie (and Patrice Starr, and Sloane French)... but as they say,

851:

Hello! Please stop deleting the text I have added to the Everest page. The stuff I added is real, verified and referenced. No idea why you keep removing it. The reason you gave doesn't make any sense. Just because 'double amputee' is already mentioned, that doesn't mean what I have added isn't good

834:

Thank you! You're absolutely right, there will be a rush later this year from the film - I'm honestly surprised there wasn't more of a rush back when the avalanche happened this year. Sadly I don't have much time to add new information, but I can probably go in and copyedit/clean refs when I find a

786:

please calm down. I'm certainly not trying to war (you'll note that neither of us has broken 3RR yet). However, if all we accepted at Knowledge was scientific sources, this would be a very sparse encyclopedia indeed. Are news sources reporting on preliminary data analysis not reliable? Are you also

4406:

I see. It's alright with me if you wanted to switch the Kunai back before Cole's plan, and expand the contraction. But as a result of your revert, the article doesn't mention what ends up happening to one of the movie's characters, and doesn't give any details at all about the role played by two

2328:

I wanted to start this so that we could all get on the same page about what to do. I think it's pretty clear that Hedgie isn't going to stop; they already served their 24 hour block for edit-warring plus their slightly extended block for block evasion/sockpuppetry, and they're still here and still

811:

Hi, thanks for your input on Mount Everest. I am just trying to get it updated for the probable rush later this year because of the film.. but much of the article dates from a decade ago. If you can add some content I think many would benefit. I tried to update with some data from the last 5 years

596:

I'm not seeking to restrict anything. I'm trying to help keep that page clean, so that every single published work about the '96 disaster doesn't end up there. If you can find a source saying that it's based on any of those books, by all means, please add it. At the moment a "based on true events"

4386:

Thanks for reaching out! To be specific, I didn't say your edit was unclear, I said the article was clearer before. Nitara is mentioned nowhere else in the plot summary, so suddenly mentioning her death isn't necessary. Cole's plan is chronologically before Raiden gives him the Kunai, so it makes

3696:

And, if I may? I know tone is hard to convey over text to a total stranger, but you're coming off as very aggressive and intimidating. You're a long-term editor with a lot of accolades and I respect you immensely, but I am also a little scared of you. Please understand that, like you, I just want

748:

That would be why I removed it; that source didn't mention it, and I certainly don't know how to interpret that data. The CBS article states that scientists are interpreting it to mean that Everest shrank. I've restored the edit and added another source from The Express Tribune, hopefully this is

4536:

Hi Gotjus, I explained in my edit summary the reason for my reversion. To be a bit more detailed: your language was promotional, you deleted the MLM descriptor without providing an updated reliable source saying that it isn't an MLM, you attempted to link to other Knowledge articles via external

4343:

Definitely do not edit the page yourself, especially as an IP address! Plainly state who you are, and then post on the talkpage so that your edits can be discussed without any worry of editors accusing you of sanitizing your article to make yourself sound good (I'm not saying that you would, but

1760:

Firstly Atkinson did not set of for Hut point with dogs on 13th February and pause there on 19th February. The distance from Cape Evans to hut point was 13 miles it would not take a team of dogs 6 days to travel 13 miles. He both set out and reached hut point on the 13th February and was held up

1500:

Thanks for the heads up on the typo which I've fixed. I tend to go through and edit and save one section at a time and then do a final check using Word, so I hope I would have caught it. I am doing this edit for the GOCE which has a drive on now to reduce the number of articles tagged to be copy

581:

Also, Kormakur didn't edit the film, Mick Audsley did. Various other fixes based on poster credits". The bolding is mine, for emphasis. Your reversion on the 17th undid literally everything that Sock did. When I undid that, stating that Sock has the right idea, you reverted my edit and called it

1793:

Hi there IP; I reverted your edits because they were ungrammatical and because you didn't provide this source. Please provide a source when you edit Knowledge, and please also ensure that your edits are readable. You also need to assume good faith, familiarize yourself with what's vandalism and

2220:

Oh snark away, my friend, snark away - the 3RR noticeboard report was actually what caught my attention here in the first place, and then I just couldn't leave that mess alone without tidying at least a little. Reading through the revision history and talkpage archives on that article are like

3690:

Planned Parenthood site). I didn't find anything stating that they're different terms; generally, a baby's assigned sex is based off of its apparent genitalia, so I fail to see how biological and assigned sex are different. Would you please explain, or point me to a source that clarifies the

3049:

I am not a native English speaker, but I want to make my English perfect, which I find hard because English itself is very far from being perfect. Yes, English evolves... unfortunately in the wrong direction. The split infinitive is not so important because it does not lead to ambiguity. But

3757:

I think you're a good editor, and don't wish in any way to discourage you; quite the contrary. I know you want the best for Knowledge, so do I, so as far as that goes, we're on the same team. I'm a bit talked out, now, so let me leave the rest for another time, but as a pointer in the right

2197:

Thank you for your help in fixing the various problems on that article -- I am starting to regret getting involved, it seeems this dispute has been ongoing in much the same terms for well over five years now. But, the likelihood of anyone being reported anywhere important is very small. The

1448: 508:

I do not have a direct interest as you strongly suggest from either an author or publisher perspective - but I have read the book. I am also British and I presume the lone review you refer to is from the American Amazon site. I suggest you check out the UK Amazon site where the book is well

1654:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4116:

I told you why in my edit summary - you deleted sourced content. It doesn't matter if you or I think it's noncontroversial; there are reliable sources which describe it as such, and thus it remains. You can't just delete things you don't think are right, you have to follow the sources.

488:

Regarding the Into Thin Air page: is The Storms a direct rebuttal, as Boukreev's book was? Based on the book's description and the snippet I could read on Amazon, probably not. In that case, it doesn't belong on that page. You might be able to add it into the "further reading" section,

2056:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3050:

misplaced modifiers are ambiguous by definition. Usually context helps but why not to express our thougts precisely and logically? Even at the expense of sounding unnatural. Especially that what sounds unnatural today will soon become quite natural. It is only a matter of time.

997:

My thanks for being another of the voices of Knowledge that edits "Our Lady of the Angels School Fire" to revert those who insist on putting the name of the UNCHARGED boy into the article. That boy is dead 10 years now (died at 54), but he has relatives somewhere, and his name

3680:

page covers the history of sex assignment dating back to 1811, and points out that a midwife announcing "It's a girl!" is AFAB. What am I missing here? The history section in the Intersex subheading also goes all the way back to Roman law. Is it that the specific term AFAB is

2744:

Hi Charles, I understand what you're saying, but the short version is that without a reliable source it can't be included. YouTube, generally speaking, isn't a reliable source. Further, putting our own analyses of a video in an article violates Knowledge's policy on original

1349:: as I stated in my edit summary, it's mentioned later in the same paragraph. Your change made it sound like all four games had the player as a security guard at different locales (which isn't right). Please reread that section of the article, I think you'll see what I mean. 4137:

Please check the hyperlinks in the references 95 and 96. These are the references that you have restored in the K2 article. The hyperlinks directs to web pages with no information about the subject. The first link opens K2 photo. The second link opens the message "The page

2696:

You recently undid an edit of mine on the first Sonny Liston versus Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) fight, when I disputed the severity of Liston's shoulder injury. Your explanation was that I needed a written source. Refering to visual evidence in a video was insufficient.

3723:

of an editor's experience, their own tone, and their behavior. Let me see if I can explain why I took what I would call a kind of "medium" tone with you (something between the tone of a level 2 and a level 3 user warning, let's say). I think there were three reasons:

2700:

Paul Gallendar's book is one of the main sources for this section. Gallendar is a bit of a loon. In the YouTube video below he is telling former ESPN boxing analyst Al Bernstein how Sonny Liston communicates with him from the dead. Maybe not the most reliable source.

437:

i have just read The Storms by Mike Trueman who coordinated the rescue on Everest in 1996 and I added this information to the film page for Everest and to Into Thin Air. I can't understand how this is seen as promotional given that it is totally relevant to both?

883:

Honestly I'm not sure; I noticed Yamaguchi先生 was reverting it as well and so I thought it'd be okay. Also, that IP was doing absolutely nothing useful, and I was concerned that they'd end up getting multiple sets of warnings if they were able to delete them.

3642:

were created in the first place. If you're going to keep inserting specific wording in the article and argue in favor of it on the Talk page, then you need to understand what the term means, and from your comment it appears that you do not. Please see

1024:

My pleasure! I went looking for references - ANYTHING that mentioned him by name - and nearly all of what I found was forum posts maligning him, his family, the 'system,' and everything in between. It's sort of the epitome of what doesn't belong here!

1581:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3538:

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

2316:

page. We've all asked them repeatedly to take it to the talkpage and gain consensus, but they haven't; the rare times they actually post on a talkpage are pretty quickly abandoned when they see that they aren't getting their way.

4391:

as opposed to listing said allies and champions. Also, as a tiny minor nitpick, your edit also introduced the word "they'd", and we try to avoid most contractions on Knowledge. Let me know if I can clarify anything else for you!

3779: 3654:

Finally, two of your reverts were within 24 hours, and may be within the scope of the sanctions covered by the Ds notice above, so please read the notice and follow the links, and be especially careful with reverts. Thanks,

1851:("perfom" to "perform"). The quote is referenced to the book by Evans which says "perform". Do you have a ref showing the original wording misspelt? Just asking - I am not going to pursue this any further myself. Regards 4132: 4412: 4376: 4281:

Additionally, the existing entries in that article are concerned with how someone died, not with what happened to their body afterwards. It's possible that decapitation wasn't that unusual in 14th-century Portugal?

2714:

In essence, I'm not saying that my argument is obvious to anybody who watches the fight. Rather, I'm pointing to a specific event in the fight, easily verified, that is at odds with Gallendar's and Maule's account.

4197:

also includes the relations of witnesses that were at the site of the accident: ″‘Ik kon het niet geloven’, zegt hij, bijna 23 jaar later. ‘Nog altijd niet. Wat toen gebeurde, tart alle verbeelding.’″. Thank you,

1891: 1288:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2997:

change the meaning of the first sentence by placing the emphasis on the verb, but in written English that same caveat doesn't apply, for obvious reasons. "Only" by default applies to the subject, not the verb.

650:

page in the See Also section for the film. This way, anyone who wants to learn more can visit the appropriate page, without the film's page becoming a list of media about the disaster. Does this meet with your

492:

As far as the movie, production began back in 2013, so I seriously doubt that The Storms is being used as inspiration. As a matter of fact, the book's publishing date is close to a year after filming finished.

1778:

I gave a citation to the passage in South with Scott where Teddy Evans remarks that Cherry-Garrard and Atkinson where considered to be the expert dog drivers amongst the expedition after Meares and Dimitrov.

2325:, and it's pretty clear that none of the above are willing to listen to reason (with Ms. Sloane as the possible exception, as she's disclosed her COI and has effectively stopped editing the page since Feb). 1785:

Scott and Wilson got their hands in at dog-driving now, as I did occasionally myself. Nobody could touch Meares or Dimitri at dog-team work, although later on Cherry-Garrard and Atkinson became the experts.

2165:

Hope you don't mind that I scooted your comment down here - I thought I was pretty clear in my edit summary; whomever edited the page prior added a malformed ref and material that, unsourced, violated the

4232:

I added the story of Ines de Castro, which it seems obvious is unusual due to how her decaying corpse was placed on a throne and declared as queen so I took it upon myself to revert your undo of my edit.

3614:

present, then you need to demonstrate a source that contains that phrase, or find different wording that is sourced. There is no source that supports AFAB at the Cashier article, so what you're doing is

257: 3142:

does not tell us whether the work has been finished or not. Of course you can somehow describe it by adding some details but from my perspective it seems difficult. If my job is not finished I could say

683:

As an update, Sock has just undone my edit adding the 96 disaster page to See Also. I've left them a message clarifying why I had added it and seeing if they could give us their opinion of our dispute.

3020:. English is very illogical, but we, as rational human beings, can do something about it, right? Of course all natural languages are illogical, but English is maybe the worst one, for various reasons. 4338:

Knowledge articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved

513:

well as the others on the subject). My team received valuable support from Base Camp, and I felt when I read The Storms, that the package of information about events in 1996 is now probably complete.

4639:. 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 3378:. 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 2444:. 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 2068:. 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 1666:. 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 1593:. 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 4445: 1866:

I did do a cursory search but am far more inclined to rely on the Gutenberg files you linked (and thank you for that!), so I believe you're absolutely right. I'll revert myself now; thanks again!

2800:

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

4138:"/news/2021/02/sadpara_snorri_and_mohr_missing_on_k2_rescue_mission_temporarily_suspended-72708=Sadpara," was not found on this server." What is the purpose to restore dead references? Regards 726:

If it's a scientific fact that Mount Everest got shorter, give the direct scientific source. The CBS article had only one source - the very page you removed as the one that did NOT mention it.

4260:

page is that a reliable third-party source calls the death "unusual" or some synonym thereof. You added de Castro with no sources at all, thus it's been undone (again). Cite a proper source.

3762:" is a shocking misfire; I'll contact them about that, and see if they will change it; it's very unfortunate as it will just confuse people more. Thanks for the heads-up about that. Cheers, 3737:

Secondly, I tried to match the tone roughly to the level of your actions. In my view, four reverts against three editors in a short space of time seemed moderately forceful, had a whiff of

1923:

Yep. I tried doing the exact same thing as you did (i.e. put in "this is the 2nd deadliest..."), and I got a link to that exact discussion when they got reverted. It really clears up a lot.

3816: 3260:

but per the image's page, there is not a released version from NASA. The photo for the Challenger explosion is an official release from NASA, which makes it usable in the Knowledge page.

4147: 4655: 3394: 2460: 2084: 1682: 1609: 3559: 3485: 3588: 4625: 3552: 3478: 3364: 2430: 1890:. While the information you want to keep in is probably correct, it probably violates the Original Research policy if it does not have a source. Please check out this discussion: 4529:

I was hoping to get some details on why all my edits were declined on World Financial Group. I'd love to get some more information so I can make edits and they will be approved.

3845: 2659: 4483: 414:

to criticize someone for editing something they enjoy. Also those articles are targeted by vandals (A LOT, like seriously, it's sad), so stuff needs to get reverted frequently.

4435: 4416: 4401: 4101:

not like it why it's should be a controversy? Cause in India, anyone can go and attend anything (Not things which are anti India) so..... Plz give me reason why you reverted?

2750:

If you can find a source that rebuts the existing claims, you're welcome to include it. With video evidence to back it up, there must be a published source that does so, and

4408: 4372: 3514: 2008: 3730:

didn't apply; had you been a newbie, my comment would have read much more gently. I'm very familiar with dealing with newbies, and have left dozens, possibly hundreds, of

3671:

that further reverts to maintain status quo are acceptable. I might be misunderstanding, though, I tend to avoid conflict so this sort of thing isn't my area of expertise.

3544: 3470: 4184: 2562:

Career section. As you have communicated,similar content has been removed from this page in the past. I am a bit confused as to why, and would like to discuss. Thanks!

347:. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 3664: 1627: 4227: 4206: 852:

information. I have added it twice, as I'm not sure which is the more suitable location for it within the page, please feel free to remove one of the two. Thanks

661:

and I don't, you might want to start a page about it. It sounds like a valuable addition to the narrative, but without a copy, I'm unable to start the page myself.

4682: 3583: 3420: 3540: 3466: 2486: 2102: 1700: 633: 617: 568: 552: 531: 468: 446: 4269: 2188:, but then it turned out they hadn't reported me there but instead had submitted a malformed report to a different noticeboard that then got summarily rejected. 787:

upset that the source saying there was even a quake at all is a news source? I've taken the discussion to the talk page, so hopefully we can reach a consensus.

4464: 4456: 1075: 1317: 711: 2725: 2632: 247: 1761:

there by bad weather until the rescue of Evans. Tom Crean arrived at hut point on 19th of February and Atkinson resuced him during a break in the weather

4380: 4240: 2394: 2030: 276:. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Knowledge works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and 3184: 1134: 1102: 1053: 678: 609: 502: 309: 4126: 4110: 162: 80: 4291: 3169: 3113: 3059: 3044: 3029: 3007: 1034: 3956: 3493: 2763: 2683: 2184:

I shouldn't be snarky, but it's just as likely they've reported you to the Coastguard as anything else. They said earlier that they'd reported me to

853: 796: 773: 758: 2927: 1932: 1918: 893: 4721: 4221: 4078: 4049: 3877: 2160: 2137: 1358: 955:" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of 707: 256: 2356: 693: 426: 4320: 4304: 4168: 4139: 4072: 3269: 2626: 2179: 1875: 1558: 925: 911: 226: 4356: 4176: 4162: 4086: 3771: 3706: 1803: 2230: 2207: 1982: 3832: 3570:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 3496:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 3336: 2839: 2341: 844: 3567: 2329:

doing it. They're warring much slower now, but it's tendentious and against consensus, and I'm not entirely sure what the next step is. ANI?

1479:

Gosh darn, I never got one of those before. How kind of you. We'd both rather edit than eat, I figure, but it's a nice notion nonetheless. –

400: 4153:

They're not dead, they were broken (both were missing the "title=" parameter). I've restored it to both links and they're both working now.

3868:, would this be a more reliable source? Apologies I can't dig much deeper, I'm behind a web blocker at the moment so I'm not too much help. 2367:

I have just added about the sources for the new information on the AE on the talk page. The article does seem it needs a lot of rewriting.

417:

I've changed the first sentence to help remove the awkward wording that I mentioned in my edit summary - does this meet with your approval?

4506:

One, sign your posts. Two, there's already a discussion on the talkpage for the stocks; I'm not the only one who disagreed with your edit.

4465:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/A-E&oldid=prev&diff=1048580473

4457:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/A-E&oldid=prev&diff=1048576279

2669: 877: 4602: 4092: 3341: 4587: 2012: 1414: 4063:

Absolutely no worries at all, and I really appreciate your leaving me a message! Thank you also for adding the source, it looks great.

2850: 2407: 2402: 2036: 1634: 1510: 3156:

PS. I no longer plan to make my English perfect. I am more realistic, and "good and fluent English" will be enough. And this is still

2533: 1752: 2821: 2548: 1964: 1744: 4762: 3758:

direction, do read the sex and gender-related articles here. As for the PP article you linked, just briefly: their section header "

2769: 2571: 2123: 3996: 764:

more than 10 cm, and mountain heights are measured in whole meters, not in cm. You can continue your war or find a proper source.

3177: 2286: 1462:

Not enough people use the 'edit summary' field, and finding someone who uses it with such personality as you is a rare treat! :D

715: 124: 3858: 3509: 2911: 2737: 1903: 2382: 1267: 1125:

Agreed--I've only ever seen the name(s) on message boards, etc., not in any sort of reliable print or electronic publication.

835:

chance. I watch the page, so I've been tracking your edits, and it's so nice to see someone give it the attention it deserves.

735: 643: 590: 539: 454: 381: 375: 242: 202: 4742: 4706: 4546: 861: 3313: 3138:

I have no idea how you (native speakers) communicate with each other using such ambiguous language. For example the sentence

3093: 2987: 1066:

Also, my apologies NekoKatus, for debating this on your user page, but Melos doesn't participate in the article's talk page.

152: 3035:

English is a giant mess, I agree with you there, but as rational human beings we can apply our common sense to phraseology.

2276: 1726:

in my absence. It couldn't have been easy, given the large number of edits from inexperienced users (bad grammar and such).

1488: 1336: 948: 654:

If we can find a source from the filmmakers discussing their sources, then I'd be happy to add that in with specific titles.

625: 560: 543: 458: 4697:

Are you stupid, just because the Chucky TV series is a show doesn’t mean it’s nothing, The Chucky TV series IS the future.

4678: 3941: 3416: 3161: 3085: 3051: 3021: 2979: 2641: 2482: 2098: 1738: 1696: 1623: 1313: 117: 4312: 2872: 2312:

I don't know about you all, but I'm getting reeeeal tired of Hedgie's repeated attempts to inject that same edit into the

1775:

The idea that Cherry-Garrard had "never handled a dog before" seems to be another invention of the Author Roald Huntford.

1471: 821: 370: 343:, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge with an 4022: 3908: 3785: 2809: 2733: 1860: 1550: 1364: 1327:

Why did you revert my change to the Five Night's at Freddy's page that stated that the fourth game took place in a home?

971: 92: 2993:

Yeah, the meanings are identical, and the first sentence in each pair is the natural word order. In spoken language you

1011: 4474:

Their press section is a good place to start, but having given those a quick skim, they all look entirely promotional.

4248: 2708:

Clay's head back at the 32:36 mark. Right at the end of the 6th and final round. Not too shabby for a "paralyzed" arm.

2151: 1300:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1250:

For checking on edits and making various fixes to Knowledge articles, especially the Mount Everest family of articles.

3823:

talkpage. I reported that IP at AIV and they've been blocked for 24 hours, so I hope they simmer down as of tomorrow.

4754: 4734: 4698: 4198: 4057: 3227: 3223: 3211: 2374: 866: 1259: 1223: 987: 4340:, so if you want the section expanded or reduced, like I said you're going to need sourced evidence to back you up. 1940: 395: 4515: 1187: 593:

link in the See Also section? I don't think anyone who sees the film is going to rely on the film's account alone.

4674: 4552: 4461:

So I edit my copy and add 3 parties reliable information about the company. You revert the changes another time.

3734:, and have assisted new users with any number of questions and on-boarding issues. But that wasn't at issue here. 3563: 3489: 3412: 3321: 3231: 3195: 3178: 2867: 2478: 2094: 1692: 1619: 1309: 4469:

There just says rollback, I don't understand what is wrong. Please let me know what is wrong so I can't fix it.

3865: 2388: 66: 3687: 2114:

I have added something to the discussion on the GDQ talk page when you get a free moment please look at it :)

3317: 3298: 3147:", but - probably - it doesn't sound natural. So if nobody corrects this error, it will stay with me forever. 2495: 112: 4325:

Hi there, and thank you for reaching out. I would suggest raising your concerns, with specific examples, on

4212:

That looks fine, thank you. Please feel free to re-add the incident with this source as well as the AP one.

4648: 4573: 3811: 3387: 2615: 2453: 2077: 1887: 1675: 1602: 1506: 1428: 873:

I notice you have been reverting the IP blanking their talk page. Aren't users allowed to remove warnings?

102: 4748: 4660: 4453:

you revert my changes two times, the first time. I understand I need more than 3 parties, reliable info.

4276: 3686:

In researching further, I found sources treating assigned and biological sex as the same thing (notably,

3399: 3017: 2553: 2465: 2170:

policy. Is something the matter? I'm not sure why you would've reported me... or where, for that matter.

2089: 1687: 1614: 1305: 963: 701: 647: 482: 206:– a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page. 4347:

Again, thanks for reaching out, and I'm happy to talk further if there's anything else I can help with!

2646: 3781: 3644: 3548: 3474: 1988: 1130: 1071: 1049: 975: 621: 556: 535: 450: 38: 2596: 4368: 4106: 3962: 2815: 2729: 1707: 867: 4287: 4244: 3838: 3429: 3207: 3165: 3089: 3055: 3025: 2983: 2240: 2119: 2109: 1733: 1493: 1007: 287: 238: 148: 600:

Is there a reason you insist on reinserting those books instead of discussing it on the talkpage?

339: 214:– where volunteers answer questions on how to use Knowledge. Many new users go there for help too. 4738: 4521: 4326: 3937: 3265: 2877: 2378: 2362: 1881: 1502: 806: 769: 731: 2824:, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. 1757:

You have reverted a number of edits I made to the scott article that were originally innacurate

131:(~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out 83:

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

4692: 4257: 4045: 4029:

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

3915:

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

3623: 3603: 3600: 3597: 3594: 3309: 3294: 3191: 2790: 2688: 2679: 2576: 2398: 2004: 1928: 1899: 1871: 1799: 1515: 1484: 1354: 1098: 1030: 921: 889: 840: 792: 754: 689: 674: 605: 498: 422: 344: 218: 170: 97: 87: 3922:

You have been trouted for criticizing me in a manner that comes off as silly. Also because of

4758: 4702: 4636: 4362: 4297: 4202: 3854: 3506: 3375: 2567: 2441: 2303: 2065: 1663: 1590: 1332: 1126: 1067: 1045: 721: 364: 348: 3528:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

3443:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

4730: 4717: 4647:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4542: 4511: 4479: 4431: 4397: 4352: 4265: 4236: 4217: 4158: 4122: 4102: 4068: 3952: 3873: 3828: 3702: 3386:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3332: 3283: 3245: 3109: 3040: 3003: 2923: 2852:(it's a long list, you'll have to search "Karan Higdon" to find the specific one). Thanks! 2844: 2759: 2721: 2544: 2452:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2370: 2352: 2337: 2226: 2175: 2147: 2076:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2026: 1997: 1978: 1914: 1674:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1601:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1467: 1322: 1296:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 857: 527: 473:

Great to hear from you! I reverted your edits because that book has very little to do with

442: 389: 47: 17: 2793:, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at 2789:

on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at

2709: 2702: 8: 4283: 4082: 4053: 3726:

First, before writing, I took note of the fact that you've been around for six years, so

2861: 2834: 2794: 2674:

Hello NekoKatsun! Thanks you so much for the "thank you" you gave to me! God bless you!--

2141: 2115: 1856: 1842: 1832: 1821: 1789:

Constantly reverting edits just because you don't like people making edits is vandalism.

1728: 1438: 1301: 1019: 1003: 958: 908: 478: 234: 210: 186: 144: 132: 3222:

seal. I chose to replace it with the disintegration photo as the header image since the

1892:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 6 #Willy waving

978:. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – 4423: 4308: 4172: 4143: 3933: 3767: 3727: 3717: 3660: 3579: 3305: 3261: 2933: 1723: 1410: 967: 781: 765: 743: 727: 319: 294: 269: 178: 74: 4619: 4580: 3989: 3883: 3358: 2904: 2675: 2526: 2522: 2424: 2272: 2203: 2131: 2052: 1960: 1924: 1895: 1650: 1577: 1559: 1480: 1277: 1268: 1214:

For ongoing work editing and protecting the Mount Everest article and related pages.

983: 899: 874: 334: 305: 222:– where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor. 4667: 4632: 4495: 4333: 3926: 3850: 3807: 3744:

The third, was that it seemed like you had some misunderstandings about terms like

3501: 3406: 3371: 2563: 2472: 2437: 2291: 2185: 2061: 1794:

what's maintaining article readability, and sign your posts on people's talkpages.

1659: 1586: 1546: 1494: 1370: 1344: 1328: 1297: 1281: 1255: 1219: 1183: 935: 817: 352: 330: 3622:

Something you said at the Talk page, leads me to believe it may be the latter. In

3465:. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called 4713: 4538: 4507: 4475: 4450:

Hi I'm trying to add Amazon Beauty inc. to request a Business page on Knowledge.

4427: 4393: 4348: 4261: 4213: 4154: 4118: 4064: 4039: 4006: 3948: 3892: 3869: 3824: 3698: 3328: 3279: 3254: 3241: 3105: 3036: 2999: 2919: 2755: 2540: 2348: 2333: 2222: 2171: 2022: 1974: 1910: 1867: 1795: 1463: 1350: 1150: 1094: 1026: 917: 885: 836: 788: 750: 685: 670: 601: 494: 432: 418: 408: 385: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4644: 4190: 3796: 3677: 3648: 3607: 3383: 2854: 2831: 2449: 2322: 2073: 1852: 1671: 1598: 1293: 1285: 903: 3697:

Knowledge to be the best it can be. I want to work with you, not against you.

2589: 2582: 1159: 4640: 4499: 4094: 3791:

I see you're engaged in an edit war with an IP over an unsourced claim for a

3763: 3738: 3656: 3575: 3379: 2786: 2445: 2167: 2069: 1667: 1594: 1538: 1406: 1289: 1175: 992: 474: 194: 107: 4133:

K2 - Climbing history - Winter expeditions - 2021 - February 4th expedition.

2136:

I've reported your blanking of that section about racism on Biff Rose's page

1235: 1093:

keeping in only the sourced info that a boy confessed, but was not charged.

4077:

Thank you! I had trouble citing the source at first, but I figured it out.

3731: 3616: 2268: 2199: 1956: 979: 916:

Okay, thanks. I've read through that now, and I appreciate the correction!

301: 3632:..."biologically female"... is synonymous with "assigned female at birth". 4489: 3801: 3462: 2299: 1542: 1251: 1215: 1179: 1002:

in the article. Between you, I and Sonora, hopefully we can keep it out.

829: 813: 268:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge. Come join experienced editors at 4651:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3521: 3436: 3390:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2456:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2080:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1678:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1605:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

4629:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3368:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3202: 2934: 2434:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2313: 2307: 2287: 940: 3129:? There was no Google because there was no Internet, and no computers. 2604: 1949: 1524: 4611: 3968: 3350: 3218:

I saw that you reverted the header image in the article by using the

2883: 2774: 2620: 2559: 2416: 2247: 2043: 1641: 1568: 574: 2940:

So, according to you, the following sentences mean the same, right?

1973:

I am in fact a tea-drinker, but I very much appreciate the gesture!

1716: 1377: 4572:. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the 3978: 3458: 3289: 2893: 2511: 2501: 2257: 1402: 1387: 2198:

likelihood of everyone's patience wearing thin, is another thing.

1541:

article family during the Mount Everest spring season. Thank you!

1447: 4446:

Knowledge:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/A-E

3638:

However that is false, and belies the very reason why terms like

3219: 1284:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

4664:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 4387:

sense to mention that first; it's also clearer to just say that

3534:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

3449:

imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

3403:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2469:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1199: 4654:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

4407:

other characters. Does that not seem like a problem to you? -

3393:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

2459:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

2083:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1681:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1608:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

300:

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,

143:

on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

4623:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

4561: 3362:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

638:

Easy there, no need for name calling. How's this - I've added

485:

page, which is why I haven't re-reverted your adding it again.

272:! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from 4593: 3454: 1764:

the relevant passage from South with Scott explains it thus.

573:

Have you been following that page? The books were deleted by

128: 3619:. Either that, or you misconstrue the meaning of the term. 3016:

different. Now it is clear to me that you never heard about

1501:

edited for one reason or another. I appreciate your thanks!

2619:, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand 282: 4389:

Cole and his allies engage and defeat Outworld's champions

3320:. Do you think that it's okay to put the new image in the 898:

People are generally allowed to blank their talk page per

657:

This is slightly off-topic, but since you have a copy of

4048:

article. Sometimes I am baffled by my own incompetence.

2862: 2855: 2428:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

586:, and I don't much appreciate them being called as such. 333:. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 4635: