Loading AI tools
I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.
Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, you can't ban people from posting on your talk page. Read WP:TALK. Since you don't want it on your talk page, I will post my comment that prompted your rather rude reply here: LK (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
As a note to the ANI discussion I forsee in your future, I would like to note that you are violating the Wikipedia pillar of politeness and have obviously no concept of how to work in a collegial manner in a collaborative environment. You repeatedly reintroduced a paragraph sourced to primary sources, without justification, even in the edit summary. And even though you wrote it yourself, and no one else supported it, you claimed consensus for it and accused the person removing it of edit warring -- ignoring that you had repeatedly reinstated it by yourself. That you were incorrect in edit warring in the section you wrote is clear in that it was eventually removed by multiple editors. And worse, you repeatedly used impolite language in edit summaries, and are doing so again here. LK (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Lawrencekhoo: I see he "banned" you as well. Psh. Don't pay him any mind. His block log speaks for itself. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you have strong opinions on what belongs in lead, I thought that you might be interested in the discussion on the talk page of Jack Kevorkian on what to include in the lead. JDDJS (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Lawrence - could I ask your view on the current status of the Keynesian Economics article? I consulted it a few weeks ago looking for wisdom, and it was clear even to me, even then, that it contained serious errors. I flagged one in the talk page (a comment I've now deleted), but there are lots. At a guess I would say the article was written by someone who knew a lot about economics but wasn’t at home in Keynesianism (a fan of the Austrian school perhaps?).
I’m surprised to see something so inaccurate, but also to see so little controversy about it – the talk page is very quiet. I’d expect a pitched battle between opposing views rather than apathy. The satellite page on the paradox of thrift seems livelier.
The weakest part follows the heading ‘Excessive saving’.
First para. This implies that Keynes identified only transient causes of unemployment (e.g. falling investment) when on the contrary he claimed to have identified permanent structural causes. He would not have recognised the risk that ‘investment falls... and saving does not immediately fall in step’ since he held saving and investment to be identically equal.
Second para. The neoclassical economists did not put this argument forward. They did not consider that unemployment could be caused by excessive saving, and therefore did not need to postulate an interest rate mechanism to prevent this from happening. Moreover they did not regard the interest rate as ensuring equilibrium between saving and investment because they thought that this equilibrium existed automatically: ‘an act of individual saving inevitably leads to a parallel act of investment’ (p21).The diagram does not have much in common with Keynes’s.
Etc. Especially perverse is the statement that ‘saving involves not spending all one’s income’. Keynes says: “Amidst the welter of divergent usages of terms, it is agreeable to discover one fixed point. So far as I know, everyone is agreed that saving means the excess of income over expenditure on consumption”, i.e. not over expenditure tout court (p61).
Even worse is the statement in the last para of this section: ‘unemployment in labour markets encourages excessive saving’. Not only is this the opposite of Keynes’s view, it’s the opposite of what the article tells us 3 paras previously.
Regards, Colin.champion (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is terrible. Unfortunately, it would be such a major project to fix it that no one has taken up the effort. I always meant to, but have constantly put it off, thinking "next summer, when I have time". All I can say is, I encourage you and other people familiar with economics to jump in. Grab a intro macro text book, read the article in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics on Keynesian Economics, read the article in Britannica, and hack away. If you encounter any problems, give a shout and I'll help, The WP:ECON working group is also another good place to ask for help. Best, --LK (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Lawrence. My first thought had been to try to write something of my own. My second, on reading the Wikipedia strictures on ‘improper editorial synthesis’ (and especially the second example involving the Harvard definition of plagiarism), was to give up the idea – I don’t see how anyone can write about economics without drawing logical inferences. In any case, I’m really not the right person to do the job. So I recast what I’d written for my personal web pages. But I was coming round to trying it out on Wikipedia anyway, and your words have pushed me into doing so (for better or worse). I’d written something which only needed reformatting, and people don’t seem in practice to worry too much about whether they’re improperly editorially synthesising. And it doesn’t hurt me if my changes get reverted; there’s still the version on my own web site. I will try to do this very soon because if I don’t do it this week there will be a long delay. Cheers. Colin.champion (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, please be WP:BOLD and just go ahead and edit the article. If anything needs to be wikified, I'll help clean up afterwards. I wouldn't worry too much about the nitty gritty of policy at this point, the article is so full of errors, that it should be easy to make reasonable edits that most people agree with. Best, --LK (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Lawrence, I’ve done just that. I don’t imagine many people will be happy with what I’ve written, but, as you say, the previous version had plenty of faults; and to criticise effectively needs a closer acquaintance with the General Theory than most people possess. I will see what happens. There are improvements I could make myself, e.g. diagrams, which I don’t want to spend effort on until I’ve seen what response I get. Colin.champion (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lawrencekhoo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from adding synthesis like you did in this article, as per MOS:FILM#Critical response, specifically the sentence: "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources," in which it explicitly states, as you say, that "it received generally positive but also some mixed reviews from critics". Slightlymad 05:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lawrencekhoo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thomas Cave (Chapman), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having any secondary sources at all about someone from the 17th century is a claim of significance. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Battlecreek poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Targatron reported by User:IJBall (Result: ) . As is indicated, this is about User:Targatron at Nina Dobrev. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I started the article about Michael Kumhof and just received a message from you saying that it's nominated for delation. I read up on requirements for biographies for living people and I understand that the information in the article need to be correct and verified. In my opinion it is but you seem to be of another opinion, can you please explain why you nominate it for deletion? Also please bare with me because I'm a Wikipedia noob ----Space4eva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4eva (talk • contribs) 08:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
HI. A neutral point of view template?. This edits summaries looks like WP:POINT. The phrase is clearly not violating any guidelines. Don't start a disruptive editing for a "minor edit". Thank you. All the best. --Miaow 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That other articles use non-neutral language is not a reason to keep edit warring it into this one. If you point out the other articles, I will gladly fix those too. LK (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Explain why is "nonneutral language" and stop your disruptive editing, please. --Miaow 15:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no violation of the guidelines unless you give an argument that makes me change my mind. This phrase means the same but in other words and using the common sense I can't find a reason to remove it. --Miaow 15:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Explain why is "nonneutral language" and stop your disruptive editing, please. --Miaow 15:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I saw that nearly ten years ago (2008/8/14), you made some edits to the Template:Infobox Province of China (PRC). I am trying to make a worthwhile change to the Infobox template- adding the category "|HighestPoint =". Do you know anyone that edits infoboxes that can help me add this to the Province of China Infobox? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm actually not that good about editing info boxes. There should be some infobox gurus around. I suggest asking at the WP:Teahouse. LK (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 06:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, 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 that 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.Years ago, you added a quote from Milton Friedman, and then added the sources later. Can you confirm this and maybe help give more info on this quote? Srich32977 couldn't find a page number for it, and I can't find the quote at all in the book, the original essay, nor the 1993 paper. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I read the quote in Mark Skousen's book Vienna & Chicago Friends or Foes?: A Tale of Two Schools of Free-Market Economics . Skousen is a respected writer, so he should have got the quote right. I may have messed up the citation, but Skousen should have it in his book. Let me see if I can dig it up. LK (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, according to Skousen, the quote is from "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited" I am away from my office and unable to find an online pdf of the paper. Would appreciate if you could help verify. LK (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I found Skousen's use of quote (Google Books, at the start of chapter 6), which cites page 171 (the first page) of 'Plucking Model'. I pulled that up the full article via Gale and that quote's not in there (Questia has a pretty long sample of the article as well). Hayek isn't mentioned. Mises is mentioned once, but the note (4) associated with it refers back to "Monetary Studies of the National Bureau" (reprinted in Milton Friedman, The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays, Aldine, 1969 - page 273 or maybe 274). I think I'm going to just see if I can get a copy of that 1969 book version itself and see if its in there. Still doesn't explain why Skousen cited it to 'Plucking Model'. -- Netoholic @ 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen the quote mentioned in other places as well. I wonder if there is a Milton Friedman library we could ask for help from. LK (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- A lot of the uses I found are from after the quote appeared in the Wikipedia page. The only thing I can think of is that, since the quote isn't in the original NBER essay, that in the 1969 book reprint of the essay Friedman wrote that line as an introduction or a notation. -- Netoholic @ 04:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen the quote mentioned in other places as well. I wonder if there is a Milton Friedman library we could ask for help from. LK (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you keep on referencing the 1969 book. Skousen cites the quote to "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited" which was written in 1993. LK (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have a full copy of the 1993 'Plucking Model' paper - the quote doesn't appear in it. The only mention of Mises in 'Plucking Model' has a footnote pointing to the 1969 book, so I'm just trying to figure out if the quote came from there and Skousen cited the wrong work. -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hopefully this link illustrates the problem: the quote appears two times in the book, but take note of the different page numbers used. 'Plucking Model' ran on pages 171-174, but the quote isn't in it. page 261 makes no sense except that in 'Plucking Model', Friedman's single mention of Mises is footnoted to point to that page 261, which is within his 1969 book. I have a copy of the essay that should appear there, but it doesnt have the quote. My last guess is that the quote was in the book but not the original essay, maybe as a author note or something. -- Netoholic @ 08:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if Mark Skousen will reply to an email about this. I also wonder if it's worth the effort. Quote notwithstanding, it's pretty clear from Friedman's paper that he believes ABCT to be contradicted by evidence. To be fair, he also believes the simple Keynesian model to be contradicted by evidence as well. LK (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think his view should be covered, this quote though at this point seems to be at risk of becoming more apocryphal than actual. Of the few citations of it (7 total), one is Skousen, one is a straight wiki mirror, and a couple are papers which were written after it was added in 2008 and which may plagiarize the Wikipedia article, or are taking the citation as granted based on Wikipedia. I'd think a quote like this would have appeared in other literature sometime will before Skousen's 2005 book. I'm only waiting on an interlibrary loan of the original 1969 book as a last-ditch effort to see if it exists before removing the quote itself. -- Netoholic @ 04:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if Mark Skousen will reply to an email about this. I also wonder if it's worth the effort. Quote notwithstanding, it's pretty clear from Friedman's paper that he believes ABCT to be contradicted by evidence. To be fair, he also believes the simple Keynesian model to be contradicted by evidence as well. LK (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you keep on referencing the 1969 book. Skousen cites the quote to "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited" which was written in 1993. LK (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not confident in my opposition to your changes to Kind of Blue, so I opened an RfC for more opinions to determine it. Dan56 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You have reverted some of my edits without giving a reason on the talk page. Please respect the neutrality principle. All alternative theories on a topic should be presented if they are supported by reliable sources. You may personally disbelieve the credit theory of money, but it is supported by a majority of the relevant literature in the last 5-10 years. Bolarno (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Lawrence. There are two issues here: (1) the theoretical question of what determines the money supply, and (2) the political question of how we want our banking system to work. Regarding (1), the majority opinion has been changing in the last 5-10 years. Please see my list of literature at Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking. Regarding (2), you write that "There's a consensus of economists that full reserve banking is a bad idea." I cannot see this consensus, in fact I am seeing a lively debate with no consensus. I have tried to find publications on both sides of this controversy in order to present a balanced view on WP. I found tons of publications that argue for monetary reform, while it was very difficult to find citeable publications arguing against reform. The one that best explained arguments against reform was a small section in an Icelandic dissertation about something else. If you have found important publications arguing against monetary reform, please give me the references. Bolarno (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Lawrencekhoo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections 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.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but apparently there are some issues at Modern Monetary Theory, and you might be able to put in your two cents. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, I wonder if you'd mind giving your input regarding Peter Navarro at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Navarro?
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Lawrencekhoo/Archive 9,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
On the article, Quantitative Easing, you deleted an edit that mentioned Keynesianism as an alternative to QE. Fiscal policy is a viable alternative to Monetary Policy, and that's why I kept that.
What is your reason for deleting "Demand Side Economics"? Nashhinton (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Lawrencekhoo/Archive 9,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Lawrencekhoo/Archive 9,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
A very merry Christmas to you too!
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Ecology.
|
What is this?
What you can do!!
Newly nominated content
Similar events
|
  
|
| |||
Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects. © Copyleft 2020
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I undid your edit to the Stetson Kennedy page. I agree that "folklorist" can be synonymous with "author" in many cases, but that doesn't apply to Stetson Kennedy. He was a folklorist, but also and author of many books having nothing whatsoever to do with folklore--e.g. After Appomattox, the Klan books, etc. It would be expected that he would be labeled an author separately from his work as a folklorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshfisher (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Anthony Bourdain. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes; you made changes to the MOS without seeking consensus on the talk page. GiantSnowman 09:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you revert every edit to MOS pages that doesn't first get consensus on the talk page? If you don't then that's just bs. In any case, it's rude to revert good faith edits with a "revert to last good version" comment. LK (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- You are changing long established wording and formatting. Think to yourself - if there was a need to make this change, if the change was so crucial, wouldn't it already have been done? Again, please simply discuss on the talk page and get agreement for your changes. That is all. GiantSnowman 10:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I could be pointy and start reverting everything you do that doesn't have consensus on the talk page. How would you like that? LK (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Lawrence – if you have time, and are willing to get involved in a disagreement, could I ask you to look at a topic in the ‘first fundamental theorem of welfare economics’. The discussion on the talk page is self-contained.
The significant point at issue is whether the FFT shows (under certain conditions) that ‘competitive markets ensure an efficient allocation of resources’ (without further qualification, as the article now says) or whether it shows that they ‘ensure an efficient allocation of resources in the short run’ (which I believe to be closer to the truth, though still an overstatement of the theorem’s generality). (And of course, besides the truth of the matter, there’s the question of what can legitimately be said on Wikipedia – I would hope there was no discrepancy.) Colin.champion (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Hi there,
I'm wondering what your grounds are for deleting this page, given that Sattar is one of the most prominent translators and literary figures in India today, widely published and read.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —ATS (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Isa Briones, you may be blocked from editing. Data is strongly sourced. Stop vandalising the article and/or take your concerns to WP:DR. ATS (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Gods sakes, you are reinserting uncited disputed material into a BLP. Keep discussion on the article talk page. LK (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- You appear to be violating BLP policy with your recent edits. Please note that BLP states: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." You have been edit warring in material that is challenged, and yet you are re-adding it without supplying a source. Additionally, describing another editor's edits as vandalism (as you did here , here, and here ), when it is a good-faith edit is not collaborative behavior. Similarly, one should not template the regulars, nor threaten them (as here []), nor report them spuriously (as here ). LK (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Please don't change links (especially piped ones) in policies, guidelines, or key essays to use shortcuts instead of full page names, as you did here. Shortcuts are for editorial convenience on talk pages and in the URL bar. In our rules and information pages, when a user (especially a new user) hovers over such a cross-reference, they should see the proper, informative name of the page and section they would be taken to, instead of seeing WP insider gibberish like "MOS:OPEN" or "MOS:PUFFERY".
PS: Please also take care not to remove crucial parts of guidelines when copyediting them, as you also did in that edit. The instruction that the lead should tell the reader why the subject is notable is central to the whole point of that section, and probably enjoys more consensus that any other sentence in the section. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I've opened a new section on the PragerU talk page to address WP:NPOV issues with the wording of your edit. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Lawrencekhoo:
I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I saw that you are a member of Wikiproject: China and was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :)
Thank you, I appreciate it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that you've done quite a bit of work on the article financial crisis of 2007–2008 and I wanted to ask you whether you would like to expand the article 2021 global energy crisis as someone informed in the topic. Clingmitch (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, re:
- 18 January 2021 Lawrencekhoo... −12 not discussed in the article... Tag: Manual revert
- 13 January 2021 Lindenfall... +12 Publisher added to lead.
Owning a news agency makes her a publisher, self-evident in the lead and in the article. Lindenfall (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Just because a person is obviously 'something' doesn't mean that thing should be included in the lead sentence. Hitler was verifiably a vegetarian, but that's not (and shouldn't be) in the lead sentence. See WP:FIRSTBIO for guidelines on the lead sentence and lead paragraph. LK (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
 |
Happy New Year! |
Hello Lawrencekhoo: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- what do you want 2600:8801:9B22:C500:980E:7C7A:8055:D602 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
I'm not associated with KillerGhost. Your edits on Hammer are poorly written as the other editor noted. You are edit warring, vandalizing, not assuming good faith, being uncivil and disruptive. You are also showing signs of ownership. The sentences on the Hammer article are too long, have serial commas and/or not written correctly. Please proofread your edits before submitting. Also do not remove legitimate sources. Thank you! RandoEditing (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Aloha27. I have reverted your edit to the page as I don't believe it to have been an improvement. At some point in the future, Justin Trudeau will no longer be "current prime minister" which will necessitate a rewrite anyway BUT he will always be the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada. Regards, Aloha27 talk 12:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's common to refer to people who currently hold the position as "the current ...". When the situation changes, we edit the wikipedia page accordingly. I don't think you would suggest changing Justin Trudeau's article to remove "current" from the lead sentence? LK (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
