No problem. This is a very delicate situation where groups have dug in trenches long before this specific issue came up. Emotions can run high, and with all the mounting ridiculousness on Twitter and FB, it's a relief to check the Talk page and find someone like you there. Please, keep it up. clicketyclick 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above

I have left the above on my talk page not as indicative of my level-headedness, of which I possess almost none, but because in the over five years I have been editing, no-one has ever suggested before that I might be the calm voice of reason. I look forward to it happening again in 2020 or so.

A cynic would observe that, on this occasion, some of the other editors involved may have been associated with the "ethics in internet misogyny" crowd, and that even I look good next to them. Particularly if that cynic was me getting back to my usual unreasonable self. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015

Hi, I'm the person who made the change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injector page that you recently undid. Can you tell me what your issue is with my edit? Also, I have no idea how to communicate on wikipedia here so please feel free to tell me I'm doing something wrong - literally just made an account to respond to your undo. Honestly, there are a lot of problems with the Venturi/Bernoulli pages as well as the related pages that I'd like to help fix SteveSmith98 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncited, and there are cites to say it works as the page currently describes it. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited? It was a quote from an existing citation (#10), and I clearly cited the quote. So...how is that uncited?

The citations that, as you put it, "say it works as the page currently describes" don't actually do that. If you read citation #3, which I have, it matches my edit and not the existing text.

I can't say how accurate it aligns with #4 since that's not accessible online, but my guess is not very well since the existing explanation is factually incorrect. Nevertheless, using the existing citations on the page, I have 2 of them that agree with my change, zero that agree with the existing text, and 1 that we can't evaluate because it is inaccessible.

So...do you still believe the revert is an improvement? If it makes you happier I can replace the Operation section with an exact copy/paste from existing citation #3 (instead of the copy paste from citation #10 with you rejected). Does that work?SteveSmith98 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added cite #4, which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure the water would never get into the combining cone at all. Much of the page is confused because it can't quite decide if it's about boiler injectors or other devices. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you directly quote cite #4 to me then?

The article says "reducing its pressure to below atmospheric which enables it to entrain a fluid" implying (perhaps unintentionally?) that low-pressure is necessary to entrain the fluid. Low pressure might be required to get the fluid up into the combining cone, but per cite 3 and cite 10 it has nothing to do with the entrainment - they clearly state that's momentum exchange via friction/viscosity.

Also, in your statement, "which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure" - low pressure is only required in a lifting injector. It's not required in a non-lifting injector. Furthermore, what support do you have for your assertion that the low-pressure (in lifting injects) is a result of the Venturi effect rather than simple viscosity?SteveSmith98 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to circle back on an edit of mine you reverted (if this is the wrong place to do it let me know). If your argument is that no Star Wars stuff should be included on the parsec page then shouldn't you delete the existing Star Wars comment? As it stands now, the current Star Wars content is incorrect. Therefore, it should be changed if you are opting to not delete it. Or it should be deleted to be consistant with your reasoning.

Regardless, I would argue that it should be included. Most folks know what a parsec is because of Star Wars. An entire movie's plot (not just any movie but the space opera Star Wars of which its exceptionally huge impact is well-known and documented) centered around shortening the parsecs required to make a particular journey in space. The impact on most people's understanding of what a parsec is and even it's existence is clear so I think it merits inclusion. What do you think? Thanks for your time. - unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:65c0:6630:7de8:b422:d89e:3cf1

It would be better to do it on the article's talk page; I am copying these comments there and will reply there. Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VeggieTales is not cancelled!

So produce a source to that effect. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I use Wikipedia a lot and thought that it would be fun and generous to help contribute back to it. I'm still having trouble getting used to the culture and requirements. You seem like a level-headed and thoughtful person and I thought that I might ask about the LotLinx page that you helped me with.

When I read through the Wikipedia requirements on page-building, they were very strict and emphasizing with only writing what was there and present on the sources as Wikipedia doesn't have the funds to fight legal battles on libel/slander. So I thought that I was doing the right thing by the way I was writing my articles: I scour them for the facts that I need, make sure they are reworded comprehensibly, and stick them all on the page, with editing to make it flow.

I am learning now that this isn't being a good contributor as it retains all of the marketing. That what I need to do is to strip out all of the fluff words, and also not to assert directly that the subect actually does do what it says as this isn't neutral, but rather what the subject aims to do. QUESTION: But I noticed that the LotLinx page still has NatGertler's {{Advert}} tag, so I feel like I'm missing a few lessons here on what I should be doing; I'm not understanding how it is still advertising?

I used the same page for the sake of examples, but I'm more interested in learning in general and thought that I would take your unusual verboseness as an invitation for a teaching moment. Please let me know if you have any other advice that might help me as I learn to be a good contributor in my Wiki'ing hobby.

Thank you kind sir/ma'am/other,

Reriksenus (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re the tag, you should probably ask the user who added it, although adding back in their product catalogue doesn't help.

The first thing to do is to answer the question as to whether you have any connection to the company in question. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edits in the Arabs article, I am trying to improve the paragraph that I've wrote by making it well-sourced and concise. I can not open a new discussion in the talk page for every small edit that I would make. The talk page is only for radical or controversial edits. Small corrections or re-wordings does not need that. So could you please refrain from reverting my corrective edits? Viaros17 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you wrote it doesn't mean you own it. What you appear to be doing is removing cited material, making uncited assertions (eg that the origin of the equatorium is disputed). This is not a "small correction or re-wording". Pinkbeast (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkbeast

The origin of the equatorium is indeed disputed. If you read its article you will see that the earliest prototype is ascribed to Ptolemy. So there is no need to flood the already large paragraph with redundant text and weakly-sourced material. Also the source for Averroes entry is Anne Rooney (children book writer). I personally investigated the claim and it turned out to be unfounded with no strong sources supporting it. See, I am trying to improve the text, not just toss around whatever claims I comes across. 13:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Viaros17 (talk)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source; you can't cite equatorium (and if you could, it says clearly that Ar-Zarqali invented it and that Ptolemy provided the theoretical basis; I imagine the sources on it, which you can cite, say that too).

Please read WP:OR; your personal investigations are also not a reliable source. Anne Rooney may write for a juvenile audience but she is nevertheless a respectable writer of popular science books; as yet you have provided no reason to suppose she got this one wrong.

Last of all, this is a discussion that could be better had at the article's talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about al-Kindi? I will delete "cryptology" part since it is redundant. Al-Kindi is known more for his cryptanalysis which is part of cryptology. Agreed? Viaros17 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything you should delete "cryptanalysis"; of the two sources, the one that mentions al-Kindi directly says he is considered the father of cryptology. But more importantly you should be having this discussion at the article's talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkbeast
Cryptanalysis is one part of cryptology. I am here trying to be more specific. Al-kindi is known as the father of cryptanalysis as can be seen in the article here.
Anyway I am going to replace some sources with better ones if that is what matters here in order to change the re-wording of the paragraph. Viaros17 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what cryptanalysis is. You're citing wikipedia again; wikipedia is not a reliable source. As said, the cite actually in the article says "father of cryptology". Pinkbeast (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my answer to the videos questions leaves us in a vacuum. The tags have been placed there to draw attention to one or more problems. They have been there for some time. Is your idea that they should become a permanent part of the article? If so, I cannot agree with that. It is time for solutions. Therefore I have summarized what appear to be your objections in a public call for comments. NOW is the time for these matters to be decided. If you do not wish to participate I will take that as a default to the solution I proposed and re-revert you reversion. We need answers. I for one would like to see your arguments. I opened the discussion on the talk page. See you there.Botteville (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to follow the policy linked from the tag and reduce external links to a minimum. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of some of my contributions to the article on Joseph Newman are inexplicable. I believe that Newman's cause of death and treatment of his remains is useful for posterity and should be captured in wikipedia. I would like an explanation for what seems to be imperious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavenderlime (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable source for your edits. The film isn't one, since it suggests the perpetual motion machine might have worked.

Additionally, some of it is utterly trivial. "Dead man cremated" is far from being a notable fact. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How the bloody hell am I supposed to find online info for 1T57 in steam rail magazines as it's 5 years ago this event.

The onus is still on you to find proper cites. You can't add uncited information just because that's hard. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I have been researching innovation in the ticketing market and wanted to add some information I have found regarding the introduction of the tertiary ticket market into the ticketing market as a whole and how this innovation has brought a new platform for event customers to re-sell their tickets after an event has started. I believe that I used correct citations. Would you mind informing me on why my sub category was deleted and what adjustments I can make on my end to ensure that my edits are in agreement with the Wikipedia standards?

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C080:4C00:3CE9:D64D:312C:A026 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're shilling for FlipTix, that's why. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I am studying entrepreneurship at the University of San Diego and this summer I am researching innovation in the ticketing markets. So that is how I came across Flip Tix. If I leave their name out of my sub category and only discuss the tertiary ticket market would that be acceptable? Then just use the references that I got from researching Flip Tix to support my claims on the tertiary ticket market?

Thanks you.

Just leave it be. It's not at all clear this supposed tertiary ticket market is in any way significant or notable. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pinkbeast,

We are trying to give Julio Herrera Velutini a networth amount. The amount before was one accepted and understood by his business partners and clients. What is a reliable source that would then be okay for us to state his networth?

Please let me know when you can! Banvelca1890 (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "we"? Wikipedia accounts are for the use of one person. Also, please remember that paid editing must be disclosed, and also it is inappropriate to edit with an undisclosed conflict of interest. It sounds like you might have some connection with Velutini. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me how to disclose paid editing (even though I am not paid) and can you please tell me what would signify a reliable source in order to properly edit the networth of Velutini? Asking with kindness! Banvelca1890 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not paid then the question does not arise. So, who are "we"? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“We” was signifying other people with other accounts who are trying to do the same thing. I am a NYU Stern student. I’m not sure why all of sudden this page is getting administrator edits as it’s been up for years. But if you could please tell me what a reliable source would be so that this issue can be put to rest. I’m sure everybody else has other things to do Banvelca1890 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you are a student, you seem to have omitted your previous claim that Velutini is your father, which is a bit of a whopping omission when being asked if you have a conflict of interest. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rob Gittins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casualty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to know what your take on 'indigenous' means. I fear that when it comes to the word, you are lacking in any knowledge. Perhaps you are mistaking the term for some hideous synonym of racial purity. It is not. You have stated that the term is meaningless when referring to the British isles. I'd like to know what evidence you have for that or how you have interpreted the word so that you can come up with such a conclusion. I'd be happy to discuss the word with you. In the meantime, I'd be grateful for you not to vandalise my contributions. Twistedpiper (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll talk when you're not accusing me of vandalism, thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please review your revert? I'm guessing you thought you were reverting something else. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. I fear pilot error on my part. I wanted the edit by Twistedpiper, who loves this spurious idea of "indigenous" English people. If you would like me to confirm at the article's talk page that you were correct to revert me, just say. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you had edited Funnybones. I was pretty much aware that this show was broadcast in Scotland. Is there any reason why you took out the airings for Scotland BBC One? Pearl1993 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the only cites show it being broadcast in England and Wales, and (as you know) the English and Scottish BBC schedules could then be quite different, especially for children's programming. Do you have a cite to show it was broadcast in Scotland? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I can't find a cite that exactly says about Scotland, but as the channel BBC is all of the UK, to have BBC One just mention England and not Scotland on the page didn't seem right. The schedules on BBC Scotland can differ in regards to culture and news,but I wouldn't have thought that it would change for children's shows. S4C is specifically just for the Welsh language so it's understandable that it wouldn't have been on BBC Wales. Pearl1993 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe BBC Scotland has differed for children's shows. I suggest maybe changing it to "Funnybones was a British children's television comedy series, which originally aired on S4C in Wales, and BBC One elsewhere", leaving (absent a cite) the question of exactly where "elsewhere" is elided.

Please don't start a new section for an ongoing discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia.

Er... they're not (and especially, they weren't) always the same as those shown in England. I've made a suggestion above. Absent a cite to say BBC Scotland aired it, I think that's the best you're going to get. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've seen articles that Wikipedia has missed out. Anyone can contribute and edit it and there are thousands of people that edit this that live abroad that don't know about other channels elsewhere. I always thought that BBC Scotland followed most of England's BBC schedule. I know STV do this differently as they're a franchise of ITV and they said (I asked them this)that they follow most of ITV schedules but opt out for specific shows just for Scotland, mainly news. Pearl1993 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I'm deleting everything I wrote. Sorry if I wasted your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl1993 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not wasted my time; I am generally willing to discuss sourcing, especially with someone who's willing to hear an answer they don't like. Thank you for accepting my proposed compromise. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016 is the telling moment in the editing history of the Aust Book Review - err, the response to being challenged as to using the editor of the name the same as the article seemed to attract disinterest... (from memory) sigh... JarrahTree 13:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That account eventually got blocked, although I daresay they're still at it. Let's see what happens next. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Drmies (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all (also, sigh, hacking out a ton of miscellaneous hagiography) but he'll bear watching. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not until he places an unblock request. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JUst for your quesation, l am an university historian student, when you say l have none support is not true at all. The other guy said the one l wrote was not a good source so l gave him a even better source and he said its okay, so yes, before insulting an academic student you should check my sources first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Where did "he" say that? Because I don't see it on your talk page - what I see is a series of warnings for disruptive editing (which you should take to heart). I don't see it on User talk:LouisAragon. I don't see it on User talk:Wikaviani. I don't see anything in their contributions where they say that. What I see is you trying to force this change through in spite of two experienced editors whose judgement I respect. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, propose the merge you, becuase l dont know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? I think it's a silly idea. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He said, its not a good source, read please, but l have sources now from experts, everything l wrote is correct. READ MY SOURCES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said "he said its okay". Who and where? Pinkbeast (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was louisadragon, he didnt say it is okay but he didnt revert it so l assumed it was okay and btw I KNOW ITS OKAY. The source l gave him in the beginning was a good writer, everything he wrote was correct, l dont know why louis didnt like him, so l gave him sources from britannica SAYING THE SAME THING, so by not reverting it l assumed its okay. AGAIN, havinmg read history since childhood, I KNOW ITS OKAY! He doesnt take me and you too, seriously. You should know me before judging me.

So earlier you told me he did say it was OK. In the last hour, then, you've spuriously threatened me with a block and lied to me. And you expect me to help you out? Get off my talk page and stay off. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan articles are a bad thing, but the answer isn't totally arbitary links to them. The addition has to actually improve the page linked from - and adding things like a specific researcher who worked at a university for one year in the 1950s doesn't. Untold thousands of researchers will have worked at that university. Why, from the point of view of improving the university's page, that one? In fact, the effect of what you're doing is to add links to highly obscure researchers or journals or whatever, because it is those that are mostly likely to have orphan articles. This is damaging to the pages you do it to. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2]I wont revert your others though I find your reasoning not logical(especially on the edit summaries)...in response to the note you left me I might try to 'stay away from orphan articles', in the end they do need to link somewhere and there not easy to find a related article to go with, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert that one? Why is one person who interned at the hospital so important as to appear in the "See Also" section, when literally no-one else does? The answer is plain; she isn't.

I wrote a bunch of the edit summaries in a hurry since you had done so much of this damage and the overall rationale is clear. It is good to link to orphan articles, but that doesn't justify this exercise in finding any vaguely related article and shoehorning a link into "See Also". What is needed, and I appreciate it is harder, is to find a link that improves both articles. You will of course be aware that, where in the past you did so, I have left your work well alone.

I suggest if you disagree we have an RFC on that specific example above; if you put it back in I shall certainly start an RFC in any event. Indeed, if talk page stalkers fancy a look... Pinkbeast (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinkbeast, I think you need to read Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom to help understand my point at Talk:Penny-farthing#Metric. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom. Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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.

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]