User talk:Bad Dryer/Archive 1

Hello, Brad Dyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kevin Curtis (coach). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Broun. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Prof. Mc. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Beer rating without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Hi! Can you explain why you are removing working wikilinks from the Beer rating page. The links are to existing pages and fall under the WP:BTW guidelines. Is there some reason to remove links relevant to the topic of the article? Prof. Mc (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I see it now. My apologies. I didn't see your edit summary on the revert. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, South China Sea, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If you could add its name in Greek and a couple good sources that would be a good thing. Best wishes, Eustachiusz (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change Wikilinks into emphasized text. This misuse is specifically recommended against by the documentation for Template:Em. In general, do not overuse emphasis in Wikipedia articles, because it impedes readability. Look at how sparingly any emphasis is used in typical Good Articles as indexed in WP:GA, and edit accordingly. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed any wikilinks into emphasized text. I fixed a problem that was called out in a tag at the top of the article - usage of bold text for emphasis. Specifically, the tag you have now restored says "The specific problem is: MOS:BOLD: bold face font should not be used within the article for emphasis. Please help improve this article if you can." - MOS:BOLD says to replace such instances with the em template, which is what I have done, and you have undone. Could you explain why you did this? Brad Dyer (talk)

Now I think I see what you were trying to do, in good faith. The problem with the article Overhead line really is that there is an overuse of emphasis all over the place. Simply mechanically replacing bold over-emphasis with italic over-emphasis was no improvement at all. Most of the stuff in bold should be changed to ordinary text; only things that need special emphasis or which are specifically mentioned in MOS:ITALICS should be italicized. The first appearance of a new word or technical term does not need to be over-emphasized; usually, introducing it in "quotes" without special formatting is quite sufficient. The article has several other stylistic problems, such as the inappropriate use of "&", and needs to be cleaned up by an experienced editor.

If you read MOS:ITALICS, you should have a much better idea of the correct style, and are welcome to give it a try. If you find this all too overwhelming, leave the article alone, and some other more-experienced editor will fix it eventually. Please don't take this personally, since you seem to be genuinely interested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia. It take a while to learn the "house style"; reading through a few Good Articles will give you a flavor of how things are written here, and repeated reference to the MOS, plus occasional questions at the WP:HELPDESK will help get you up to speed. Best wishes in your future editing! 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i think I got it. So you think the best approach is to simply de-bold the existing bolded words in the main article? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly, for this particular article. According to MOS:BOLD, bold is used primarily for words that are synonyms (alternatives or equivalents) of the topic of the article. Italics are used for emphasis, but should be used very sparingly, and not on a widespread basis. As you work through the article, you may also want to watch for WP:OVERLINKING and remove any that you find. The overall goal is good readability, with special formatting used only to highlight the first occurrence of words that are significant (mostly synonyms of the article topic, plus Wikilinks to related topics that might actually be useful or of interest to a reader).

In actual practice, I have noticed that bolding and italics are used in some articles more freely than the MOS recommends, while still while preserving readability. Ultimately, editing decisions (and the MOS itself) are based on a consensus of active editors, after an open discussion and compromise. It all sounds a bit complicated, but this is what has evolved over the past decade, and it (usually) works.

It may be easier to get a feel for the Wikipedia style by looking at a few representative Good Articles (GA), such as Mercury (element), Vannevar Bush, HDMI, USS Massachusetts (BB-59), Bay Area Rapid Transit, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You may notice some detailed inconsistencies among various GAs and the MOS. This is because both the articles and the MOS continue to change and evolve over time, and Wikipedia never will be finished, as long as the world continues to change. But there definitely is a "house style" intended to convey information in as readable and as clear a format as possible. Reify-tech (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks for the tips and pointers. I'll start workign on implementing them - fee free to look over my shoulder (virtually) and fix things if I mess up. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nayef Hawatmeh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jordanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin clearly understood that the RfC was talking about instructions, however much he might now be denying it after the fact.[1] To quote: "I therefore note that there is no consensus for changing the instructions."[2] As such, the current instructions do stand. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the administrator explicitly told you , relevant parts being bolded: "No, I did not say that there is consensus for any "purge". The discussion was about whether to remove instructions from the category page, not about whether to remove pages from the category, and it did not result in consensus. You should obtain explicit consensus for any potentially controversial mass edits in advance, or you risk being blocked for disruptive editing". Proceed at your own risk, and I have very little patience for further disruption. Brad Dyer (talk)

Brad, I know you are sort of new here, but admins aren't prison guards, they are WP:Janitors like in high school. Shush, though, they get mad and vain if you point it out. And yes they can drive you off campus if you are totally disruptive to the project but what we are disputing here is content.

Encyclopedic content, given that what we are trying to do here is create an encyclopedia. What admins can otherwise do here is, for the most part, just lock us out of certain school rooms. And what they've done lately and repeatedly, with regards to this and similar categories is clownish. They've declared Hitler isn't an anti-Semite years ago.[3] Then they said recently, that's cool, and five minutes later that essentially I'm not taking that back, but that wasn't what I meant. So screw you if you put words in my mouth. If the rules the admins come up with can't be applied consistently, that's just an avenue for corruption (q.v. The Roosevelts, I'm practically quoting Teddy). Hey, the rules say no one is to be listed as an anti-Semite, but, Hitler is, and a few other unfortunates, so for $20 I can keep you off the list, wink, wink! Janitors, after all, do hold the keys.

FWIW, I argued in the RfC for presenting verifiable truth in this matter. I was shot down. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adolf Hitler. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy the explanation of the problems with Keramiton's edit onto the Man Blumenthal article talkpage. Given that there are BLP issues involved, I think you should revert your reinstatement of it. That Blumenthal has been banned from the Bundestag is correct, but everything else in that edit was either incorrect, misleading, an inference or an opinion stated as a fact.     ←   ZScarpia   19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page. The text currently in the article fairly represents the reliable source it is using. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schneider Electric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trianon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ireland–Israel relations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a reason in all three edit summaries: it is original research, and some fo it not related to the relations between Israel and Ireland. Do exercise more care in the future before blindingly reverting my edits. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Corkythehornetfan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from University of Oklahoma without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did give an explanation, but perhaps it was too brief. An editor later provided a lengthier explanation when he removed the same thing. If you still don't understand why it was removed, drop me a note and I'll explain in full detail. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Undue" is not actually an explanation as to why the info was removed. Did you mean there was undue weight or did you mean revert it for some reason? I think it was a tad confusing by just saying "undue". Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 05:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant WP:UNDUE, but the way I phrased it may have been unclear. hopefully that's been cleared up now. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to use "ITMgrid" on Israeli locations (NB: "ITCgrid" was a typo), but please do not remove "palgrid". We have a serious purpose for showing the Palestine grid, namely that it is used by a very large number of reference texts for identifying locations. It is fine to have both. Zero^talk 08:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say the same: on Qalansawe: the Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, Denys Pringle and Andrew Petersen references all identify the place by giving the "pal grid"-numbers. Now, the name Qalansawe is pretty unique, but for, say, the Taybeh (disambiguation)-places, or the Tira-places: then the "pal grid"-numbers is the only thing they are differentiated by, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad. What "Talk" did you mean? I couldn't find it, pls. help.

I do stick to my argument (See Infobox "title": "Israeli Ambassador to Ireland". He's in charge, he's responsible. That is how it works in every representative hierarchy. He can discipline or fire a deputy overstepping his rules.)

Mrs. Moda'i has no power of threatening demonstrators, starting shaming campaigns etc. OUTSIDE the embassy framework. She has no platform for denigrating the "Irish masses" other than that of her embassy job. And Mr. Mod'i IS the ambassador. The buck stops with him, that's that.

Why add her to his website: he does not represent anything to anyone on WP apart from his role as ambassador. Whatever happens within the embassy, is relevant - for him & his WP web page. It's not his LinkedIn page or private CV. And EMBASSY = EMBASSY TEAM. The fact that she is his wife MATTERS too, no need to go overboard trying to be "academic" about it. They discuss things at home as much as on the job.

Benjamin & Sara Netanyahu, M. & Raissa Gorbachev, Nicolae & Elena Ceausescu... That's how it works. Once the ladies choose to have a share in their husbands' political career, it becomes a team, ONE UNIT. She does smth. good or bad - he takes the credit or criticism, too. WP is not about denying the obvious, or is it?

Of course WP editors are motivated by political or private sympathies and inclinations (please excuse me for being blunt, but beating around the bush only wastes time), so I'd like to ask you: honestly, what makes you spend time on this - to me quite obvious issue - time & again? In German there's a negative legal term, "Sippenhaft", broadly meaning that one's family or clan is made responsible and liable for any member's mistake. Are you just trying to be extremely politically correct and avoid any shadow of "Sippenhaft", or do you want to remove whatever part of criticism one can somewhat claim doesn't belong here? Both reasons are legitimate, I'm just curious.

Personally, I think both Moda'is are acting in a shameful, undiplomatic way, actually you know what? forget the "PC-talk": wacky is the word for it. I see no way how one can split this whole issue into "him" & "her", quite objectively speaking. Whatever. Waiting to hear what moves you. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

I was referring to the article's Talk page: [4]. I'll respond briefly here, but we should really continue the discussion there. I disagree with the statement 'Whatever happens within the embassy, is relevant - for him & his WP web page.'. The article is his bio, and his work at the embassy is relevant - and even that, only to the extent that reliable sources have commented on it. Not everything that happens within the embassy is relevant to the ambassador's bio, just like not everything that happens at Google is relevant to Sergey Brin's bio, and just like not everything that happens in the US government is relevant to Obama's bio. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Brad Dyer, thanks for creating Antonella (TV series)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will follow up on this. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]