White whirlwind

For all your good work

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For your excellent work in the translation and improvement of China-related articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Well done! Philg88 contact 21:07, 23 April 2024 UTC [refresh]

TUSC token e5543d7d6c132f23e1bad9e4b700906b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Can you help verify translations of articles from Chinese

Hello White whirlwind,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Chinese to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Chinese article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Chinese , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Chinese. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

• Christopher J. Marut
• China Railway Siyuan Survey and Design Group Co., Ltd.
• Christian Alliance Cheng Wing Gee College

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Chinese article, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk)

Why I wasn't more assertive

I was rather lenient about the addition you said should be removed.

Once the topic ban is started, all of my edits to all articles dealing with abortion can be reverted without worrying about the three revert rule. So it didn't make sense for me even to move the offending addition to another section; the ban will probably start soon since they voted to ban me; any change I made now would lose its "weight". They are still figuring out a few details and the ban hasn't started yet.

If you want to keep working with me on the same article, it is possible for you to ask them to exempt this particular article and talk page from the topic ban. If they accept it, they could arrange that I will be permitted to edit it on good behavior and under White whirlwind's discretion. In that case, my past contributions remaining on the article would still be protected by the three revert rule. (link if you want to ask)

I recently changed some of the references on another article to another format after being asked to. That was mostly new to me and I had to learn how. I also want to change over references on this article to reduce the kilobytes.

Side note that I try to be nice to people from foreign countries who appear to be paid editors. At times I've conversed with them off of wikipedia, on a freelancing website. In the past on wikipedia I agreed to take up their tasks in return for translating things from English into the foreign language. It didn't always work out, but sometimes it did. Another side note is that I've been on the receiving end of strange, disruptive editing after sticking up for someone who was being treated poorly by a group. It didn't go on for that long, it was intended to convey a threat. Yet there are enough strange people on the internet that it is understandable if you don't want to comment.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I have had no qualms with our interactions at the Roe page and I think you have done some good work there. But a few of the reports of your behavior that appeared on the ANI page—which I've only skimmed—are a bit concerning. Your decision to interact with those paid editor(s) struck me as bizarre, frankly. Perhaps it might be best if you took a break and focused on the social and interpersonal fronts.  White Whirlwind  08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I rank low in the social hierarchy on wikipedia, so deciding to interact with paid editors was me looking for a group even lower than I was to be my friends. I got to see them as human especially after looking for translators on a freelancing website. I asked about experience, and some had edited for wikipedia.

If you don't want them to carve the Roe article out of the ban, I understand and won't continue trying to persuade you. I expect that after being banned, it will see substantial revision if there is no carve-out. Since Roe will be in the news when Dobbs is released, its article would be a major coup for anyone who wants to shift it from a neutral point of view towards propaganda. I don't know if you saw the viewership graph from May, but here it is. I expect it to repeat soon.

If the carve-out is contingent on your on-going approval, you could revoke my ability to edit the Roe article at any time at your discretion. So if you see a concerning behavior coming from me, you could respond by revoking it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I don't know what the "Wikipedia social hierarchy" is. Assuming such a thing exists, I would ignore it and focus solely on making good quality edits and getting along with other editors I encounter. That is what I try to do. Also, regarding your "carve-out" request, I must respectfully decline.  White Whirlwind  23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

edits to RvW page

White whirlwind: Thanks for your many edits and improvements to the RvW page. May I ask that you reconsider two edits that you reverted?

(1) "Three-judge district court" is the correct term to use when describing a district court composed of three judges, and it should be described as "A three-judge district court of the Northern District of Texas," rather than "A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas," which is how it currently reads. Type the "three-judge district court" phrase into google to see how it is used to describe these (now rare) court proceedings.

(2) The phrase "struck down" should not be used when describing what RvW did to state abortion statutes because many of those statutes remain on the books and will automatically go back into effect if Dobbs overrules Roe. Saying they were "struck down" implies that those statutes are no longer in existence, which is false. "Declared unconstitutional" is the better phrase to use.

Thanks for considering this. Urnslenny (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urnslenny: Thanks, always happy to discuss opinions. I'll gladly look into #1 when I get a moment. Your argument in #2 often appears on Twitter and legal blogs. But as I wrote in the edit summary, I find it to be highly pedantic. Every expert in the field already knows that the term "struck down" isn't literal, and the distinction of little significance to laypeople. I find the term pithy and useful, and expert constitutional law treatises such as Tribe and Chemerinsky have no qualms about employing it. If you continue to disagree with me, feel free to start a discussion with a larger group of interested editors, perhaps at the SCOTUS WikiProject.  White Whirlwind  07:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your point about #1 appears to be correct. Thank you for enlightening me.  White Whirlwind  09:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Lazy reverting"

I'm just letting you know, this edit summary wasn't appreciated. "Lazy reverting"? Really? Do better next time. You know as well as I do if you add content, a source has to be provided and if it isn't, that addition is likely to be reverted; nothing lazy about it. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I'm sorry that edit summary bothered you. Unfortunately, you are quite wrong. You said, "if you add content, a source has to be provided." This is false. According to WP:Verifiability, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." WP:Citing sources says the same: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Wikipedia does not now have, and never has had, a policy that all material requires a citation. As I understand your revert's edit summary, you weren't challenging the substance of the content itself or its inherent verifiability, only the fact that I forgot to add the citation. Hence, no citation was required. (The type of material I tend to add on judges' pages nearly always comes from their SJC questionnaires and presents no verifiability problems.)  White Whirlwind  17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, if it's going to be challenged, as it was, then it needs a source. Not hard to understand. You added content that wasn't from citations already provided, that's why it was reverted. End of story. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You'll want to review WP:Verifiability. "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If you don't understand the official policies here, it'll hinder your ability to contribute to the project.  White Whirlwind  02:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be quoting policy to me, I understand it quite well. Been involved in the project for years with hardly any intervening action, so I think I'll be just fine, thanks Snickers2686 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought perhaps I did. I’m glad to hear that I don’t.  White Whirlwind  05:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested improvements for Dahua Technology

Hi White whirlwind, I am working on improving and adding content to the Dahua Technology article. As you have shown interest in China-related matters and are a member of WP:China, I thought you may be interested in reviewing my latest edit request. I would appreciate if you would help implement the changes, as I am not editing directly due to my COI. Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Erie Railroad and Butler's opinion

I understand what you are saying, but here's the problem: the Court reversed the Second Circuit. Butler's opinion ends with this paragraph;

"I am of opinion that the constitutional validity of the rule need not be considered, because under the law, as found by the courts of Pennsylvania and generally throughout the country, it is plain that the evidence required a finding that plaintiff was guilty of negligence that contributed to cause his injuries and that the judgment below should be reversed upon that ground."

So, he concurred with the result, reversing the court below. He disagreed with the grounds of reversal. That's a concurrence, not a dissent. At 304 U.S. 80 Butler's opinion is not listed as a dissent. Knockanar (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knockanar: We're getting into some fuzzy territory about what constitutes a dissent. But we can't do WP:Original research. We are bound by what we find in the major WP:Reliable sources. Let's try checking other prominent treatises and law review articles.  White Whirlwind  20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I went onto Westlaw this afternoon and checked a few, and they all call it a dissent, which I don't understand at all (I assume you are a lawyer like me, and we have both known since law school the difference between a dissent and a concurrence). I tinkered a bit with the paragraph about Butler's opinion, calling it a separate opinion that is often called a dissent ... Knockanar (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knockanar: I understand your concern and confusion. But if the majority of the reliable sources call it a dissent, then so shall we.  White Whirlwind  21:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

author-mask

Hi, White whirlwind. What is the problem with |author-mask= that you refer to here? Kanguole 00:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kanguole: It doesn't work well with the ref mouseover feature. Users just see a blank line without the context of an above entry specifying who the author is. (Edit: to be specific, I'm referring to the "Reference Previews" beta feature, which has nearly half a million users and appears headed for standard adoption.)  White Whirlwind  00:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean mw:Reference Tooltips? I'm one of those half million users. I have an ingrained reaction at the sight of repeated author names, so it would be a pity to lose this feature. I've raised the issue at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Reference Tooltips and author-mask. Kanguole 19:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe the coders can come up with way to disable the mask parameter for the mouseovers.  White Whirlwind  21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please place the citations from which you draw your information

...when you place content in articles. (I'm presuming you draw from published sources; it violates WP:OR and WP:VERIFY to draw information from memory / personal knowledge, rather than direct from digital or print sources.)

If your content is being drawn from sources already appearing, use the <ref name=XXXX/> markup to reproduce the appearing inline citation to your source, at the point where new information is being placed.

Apart from clear what-came-from-where inline citations, articles become a morass / mix of sourced and unsourced information, and it can take hours of work to parse with regard to compliance to WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. (And in the meantime, the article cannot be used by students, because of its unreliability.) Thanks. An educator. 2601:246:C700:F5:F45D:4CF5:F892:E985 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@2601:246:C700:F5:F45D:4CF5:F892:E985: I'm well aware of how citations work. It would help if you mentioned what prompted your comment. To the extent you're suggesting that every sentence needs a citation, WP:VERIFY has never required that and never will.  White Whirlwind  03:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Request participation on Brown v. Board of Education

I would appreciate your feedback vis a vis Talk:Brown v. Board of Education#Proposed removal of claim added in 2006. Fabrickator (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paul Demiéville.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Demiéville.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Zhuangzi article

Hey! As you know I've been building upon your excellent work on Zhuangzi (book) and am doing my very best to treat it with care, but I am sensitive to the fact that it's your work, so I just wanted to check that you think my tweaks and additions are appropriate—not to make more work for you to do if you don't have the time, I just like to be communicative. :) cheers! Remsense留 11:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

re:template

I just saw your edit summary on Zuo Zhuan: I did fix the template by adding the ability to bracket terms, I just forgot to edit the template in place on that specific article. apologies. Remsense诉 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello White whirlwind!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

confucius portrait

sorry for swapping the portrait it was pretty late and ive shouldve gone to sleep at that point idk why i did that anyway have fun and be yourself despite what the haters say. peace ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)