User talk:LSGH

This user has an alternative account named Carbonitrous.

Please leave a new message at the bottom of this page.

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LSGH. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!

LSGH, what is with all these moves? I can't follow. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the welcome :) I've been reading articles related to the Seoul Metro for a while, and I noticed that the names of stations about articles ended in station (first letter is in lower case), rather than Station (first letter is in upper case). Just a few days ago, when I randomly read through some of those same articles, there was at least one other user who had already begun renaming articles of stations (the majority of them being Korail stations elsewhere in South Korea) such that the first letter of Station was already in upper case. By my own intuition, I decided to follow along, merely copying the edit summary that he used, regardless of whether there was a redirect already or not. I do not know why the articles were named that way. The majority of articles in other cities and countries had station, while those in Japan had Station. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

Please see MOS:CAPS and RM discussions such as Talk:Achasan_station#Requested_move_20_January_2018. Your over-capitalization of words like "station" in titles has caused a lot of work to fix. And "rv back" is not much of a rationale for undoing a move that cites an RM discussion (you can look at the "history" to see when it was moved previously, and why). Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could help fix these, that would be awesome. Otherwise, it will take me a while. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin in a while. The consensus there appears to have been reaffirmed more than two years ago, so it should be respected. But I went on to rename some pages after seeing [1], [2], and [3] as a possible excuse to do the same. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed those and a bunch more. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Baligh

You have been pinged in this discussion, please give your comment on this matter. 116.58.201.8 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuite Baronets

Hello LSGH,

I submit that you conflict of interest might apply if I was adding new, or unsupported information. However, almost all the changes I made were to revert changes from a single person (Kleuske), all made around the same time. These changes are incorrect and were done with no justification and no supporting documentation. The previous version (and my revisions) are well documented and supported by publicly available information. Much of which I will point out is available in the original link in the original version of the article (pre Kleuske). I would like to know why you are preventing me from reverting these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTuite (talk • contribs) 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Further discussion should ideally happen on the article's talk page, Talk:Tuite baronets. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited López, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramón López (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) 06:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us Part II

Look, I'm not unreasonable. All this information is proven and a game with a story needs a plot section. The excuses why that is not allowed were the following

Naughty Dog never confirmed that; until the game gets released, information not based on facts should not be uploaded

Then he proceeds to remove information that is more or less copied from the preorder page.

no way to verify if this summary is true as the game is not out yet

Which is wrong, since the people making the game know what they are working on and images don't lie. Faking all those screenshots would have taken way to much effort. Not to mention that you'd have to make all those models.

Vandalism.

Which is completely bullshit.

Self-published YouTube sources are generally unreliable, and regards WP:YTREF. The violence overall in the trailer was criticized, it wasn't just a focus on violence against women. Contrary to your beliefs, nothing in the plot has been proven.

When I didn't have the archive link yet and instead cited a youtube video showing how the page looked intact.

no reason and marked as minor edit
Spy-cicle and you pointing out the form issues of my edits

Why can't any of you smart-asses just check the sources and confirm what I wrote/translated/gathered. — Captainobviousthesecond (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Perfecto Yasay Jr.

On 14 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Perfecto Yasay Jr., which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

training bra

How is it vandalism? Zoe1013 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi - in this edit, you reverted a change with the edit summary 'Vandalism'. I don't know whether you have read WP:VANDALISM, but I struggle to see how you could come to the conclusion that the edit you reverted was made in bad faith. Is there something I have missed? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 07:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was looking for a rationale that is sufficient enough to justify the changing of those links. I checked that diff just now, and it appears to me that both the removed links and the new links were good enough to fit into the article. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LSGH, you're looking at it the wrong way. The default is to assume good faith - when determining whether something is vandalism or not, your default assumption should be that it is not, unless there is very clear, undeniable evidence to suggest that the user is intentionally trying to damage the article. That's not to say you can't revert edits that you don't think are actually improvements - but you shouldn't call it vandalism unless you are certain about the editor's intent. Please read those links carefully. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will take that as a reminder. I should not be too confused because of the disruptive editors who show up at RC from time to time. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Cherrylips96 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reverse the revert you have done on nabdwip page.

I have added very strong source behind the edit I performed And I think it was great information to be know by the people who visit this temple. (Side note, although iUniverse is self publishing publication, Stephen Knapp is very well known scholar who have spend decades studying vedic literature. So, is valid authority.)

Also, adding proper summary as to why you have reversed the edit Performed from this account might be great.

But, no such summary is found.

Please, I request you to please immediately reverse and re add this edits. Including source Or provide valid information and reasoning behind edits you performed.

Thank you. Harshil.sarvakar (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Robert Adams (spiritual teacher)

Hello! Please be careful when using stock templates to revert edits - I've undone your edit at Robert Adams (spiritual teacher) because you said that the edit you reverted was unexplained content removal, whereas it was explained clearly in the original edit summary (and the reason appears valid - all the references in that section are from personal blogs, not normally considered reliable sources). Thank you! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OcarinaOfTime: Hello. I wonder what other rationale would the IP user have in removing a controversy from a BLP page. There have been cases before when some shady users would like some controversial material to be removed from a BLP page, but their requests were declined. I'll find some time to see if the content that the IP was trying to remove can still be backed up by other reliable sources. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, my comment was more disputing the revert reason given ('unexplained content removal') when the IP editor had given a non-spurious reason in their edit summary - if you can find some other reliable sources to back up that information, by all means restore the section and update the references. I did have a quick look too, though it seems to the entire basis of the claims in that section are comments on a blog, and I couldn't find anything more concrete from a quick Google search. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No major media outlet seems to have reported on that matter, as far as I can see. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA reports

Hi there. I noticed a couple of reports you made to WP:UAA. Please take some time and refamiliarize yourself with our username policy, especially WP:SPAMNAME, before making further reports. You have reported multiple users with a potential conflict of interest (COI) as promotional usernames when the username policy explicitly allows editing under one's real name. Instead, those users should be warned if they are editing with a COI, using the {{uw-coi}} user warning template. Regards So Why 19:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Hello. Since those users had names that represent real people and not companies, I should have labelled them as misleading instead of promotional. With regards to policy, WP:REALNAME says that "if a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." What caught my attention was that they were barely editing any article other than those that link them to the subject of these articles. The content that they were trying to add were not even supported by reliable sources. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real name accounts may be blocked if they use the name of a notable person, e.g. we would block User:Bill Gates until they provide proof they are Bill Gates. However, real people who are not notable can (and sometimes do) use their own name, e.g. fellow arbs Casliber and Joe Roe. Editing only certain articles and failing to adhere to the requirements of providing sources may be sanctioned if warnings and discussions with the users in question are fruitless but not for username reasons since it's not misleading to use your own name (unless you have reasons to suspect that they are not who they say they are but I can't see any here). Regards So Why 14:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Since the two arbs have no BLP articles of their own, their choice of using their real name as their username is perfectly fine. As for those that I reported to UAA, the accounts have usernames that, on their own, are not violations of the username policy. However, they began editing either their own BLP article or a related person's BLP article almost immediately. The COI becomes an issue there, so I look through their very short editing history. (I would have ignored them entirely, had they barely edited those articles.) If there is a strong correlation, my first reaction would be to report them to UAA, and not the COI noticeboard. Is that more appropriate, or should I be doing it the other way around? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my point. As I said, a real name is only a reason to block someone to prevent impersonation, which requires that there is some reason to believe that the user behind the account is not the real person they are pretending to be. For notable well-known people, it's more likely that the user does not match the real person (e.g. there is a very small chance that Bill Gates will ever edit Wikipedia and/or do so under his real name). For unknown people on the other hand, the username is only a problem (that needs reporting to UAA) if you have additional reasons to believe that they are impersonating someone (e.g. if User:John Doe went around vandalizing pages with "John Doe is a stupid ****", we can safely assume that John Doe is not behind that account). In most other cases, WP:COIN is usually the right noticeboard (e.g. for people editing pages about their relatives like the ones you reported) because their editing is problematic but their username is not. Regards So Why 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I don't expect discussion at COIN to be short, and not all reports there are related to UAA. For as long as there is strong evidence, that venue would be effective in handling issues of this kind. I'll look for chances to bring up reports there. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical cases chart

Hi, is there any particular reason for this [4] partial reversion? And in many other similar country templates. Togglesbar parameter is built inside module now, no need to specify explicitly.- Timbaaa -> ping me 03:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @LSGH:- Timbaaa -> ping me 06:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging again to get some answers @LSGH: - Timbaaa -> ping me 01:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hansler

I started a report] over at coin about that article. I saw that you were involved over there and I thought you might have something to say or that the report might interest you in some way. cheers --AdamF in MO (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have seen the thread already, but I just need to address some other concerns elsewhere before I can give my comments there. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that your version of the article Bruce Buffer was right and the version put forward by user:Groomscyrus was wrong? Looking at the article's history way back to its early days in 2007, the place of birth was always Tulsa, Oklahoma. This information was added by user:MgHoneyBee in this edit, at a time when he was adding places of birth for a long list of fighters. All the others that I checked are still in the articles concerned and are presumably correct. The place where Tulsa was changed to Montvale, New Jersey was in these two edits by an IP on 6 January 2019, the only two edits he ever performed. So this is the rather dubious basis for your repeated reversions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I would assume that that was correct because it has been around for some time. If the IP who initially changed that particular information was wrong, then why was it not corrected immediately? Somebody else (who turned out to be a spammer) tried to change that again, but the edit was reverted immediately. Another user would rather remove that entirely on the grounds that it was poorly sourced and disputed. Groomscyrus tried to put it again, but was reverted again immediately. Again, this is a matter of finding reliable sources that will support changes to well-established information. The burden of proof is on the person who attempts to change that information. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome seems satisfactory, but I hope you will have learned the lesson that someone changing something in an article is not necessarily acting in bad faith. In this instance, Groomscyrus states that he heard an interview during which Buffer mentioned that he was born in Tulsa. Thank you for patrolling recent changes, but please be more cautious in future before labelling good faith edits as vandalism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A2

Hello! You added a CSD tag to List of Ministers of Social Welfare (Bangladesh) on the basis of WP:A2 - as the article is in English, that tag doesn't apply, even if a translated version of the same page is on another Wikipedia project. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OcarinaOfTime: Hi again! That article showed up at RC at a time when everything that was in that page was still in the Bengali language. The user who created that article had made only three edits there when I tagged it with CSD A2 for the first time (see this). Since I barely had any experience yet with CSD during that time, I was not able to include the parameter that will point an admin's attention to the page on bnwiki from where all of the content was copied from. The CSD tag was removed when that user returned to the page after a few minutes. That is not allowed in the first place, because he was supposed to explain why the article should not be speedily deleted. He was only able to complete the translation after some time. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'd missed the first CSD - that makes sense, although in this particularly case I wouldn't have had any issues with the editor (even unknowingly) invoking WP:IAR by removing the tag, as the CSD tag clearly didn't apply any more with it being translated into English. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be in good shape now, though. Translating a text into another language is not always easy, and he knows what he was doing there anyway. Thanks again :) LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Joplin unsourced content addition

Hi, on the Janis Joplin Wikipedia page, you and another user are repeatedly reverting a content addition, saying that is it “unsourced content.” However, it has sources. To be clear, I’m a different person than the anonymous user that originally added the content, but I think that the content is good to add to the page and there’s no reason for it to be removed, given that it is both notable and verifiable. Could you give an explanation for why you continue to remove it as “unsourced content” when it has citations? Thanks, Gbear605 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbear605: Hello. The IP user added this to the article when that article showed up at RC. Then Binksternet immediately reverted that edit on the grounds that there needs to be a secondary source to back up that content. The IP kept on adding such kind of content, until an admin imposed a time-limited block on him. He was referencing at least two sources, which we would not bother to find, because he was merely reusing other sources that were already cited in the article. One of those (The one that is marked with <ref name="Joplin, Laura"/>) is a primary source. Did I miss anything else? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Bruce Buffer

Please see the result of a complaint about your edits at the noticeboard. Wikipedia should not be reporting a birthplace for this man (whether Tulsa or Montvale) unless it can be traced to a WP:Reliable source. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi there, I notice you're doing a great job reverting and reporting vandals. Have you ever thought about getting one of the vandalism tools like RedWarn, Twinkle or Huggle? They're really handy. Rollback rights would help you as well. Thanks again! Glen 04:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: Hello and thanks a lot. I'm not yet considering other permissions such as rollback rights, but I'm already looking at installing any of those tools. I just do not know yet if there is a way to customise the edit summaries that are automatically generated? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LSGH, I'd strongly recommend Twinkle. It gives you a number of revert options, including options that will allow you to type a manual edit summary - really useful for dealing with good faith but otherwise problematic edit. It also makes filing reports at AIV, UAA, SPI etc much easier. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Looks great, I'm reading the documentation and might it soon. Thanks! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

What you did is wrong. If anyone is creating vandalism is Sasan Hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Well this so called Vandalism by me was simply because I showed the 3 better sources that any editor wants. These are the following: https://archive.org/details/tratadodelimites00port_0/page/n15/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/AlexandreDeGusmaoEOTratadoDe1750/page/n2/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/tratadodelimites00port/page/n6/mode/1up I suggest you take a look at the talk page of list of largest empires and see who needs to be blocked. Roqui15 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I am trying to regress a series of destructive changes to an article. I noticed that you moved to reverse my effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beau R Ragsdale (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello! Just a quick note - please can you stop using the generic 'Reinstating previous version of article' edit summary when reverting other users' edits (sometimes for no obvious reason - and the edit summary is there to make it clear why you carried out a change to the article). I've reverted a couple of your recent changes where that summary was used, as it looks like legitimate improvements had been made to the article by the user you reverted, and that edit summary tells me precisely nothing as to why their change was undone. Thank you! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OcarinaOfTime: I am still not able to revert consecutive edits by others. If the edits are disruptive, I would look for the latest revision and manually do the revert. This could change soon, as I would be able to revert more than one edit at once when I have decided on which additional tools (but not the rollback permission) to use. In the meantime, I would append something else to that edit summary. Thanks for the gentle reminder! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's less of an issue if you're re-reverting obvious vandalism or similar after doing so the first time - but edits like this [5] really need a descriptive edit summary - it looks like you're just removing fully sourced edits without explanation. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CORE page

Hi, I am editing the CORE page, and it seems as though you've undid sourced changes. Please note that there are sources for this information. If you'd like to provide specific feedback on which information you believe is unsourced, I would appreciate it. It's important that people have current information about CORE because of its COVID response. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KNWLEDGEISPWR (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LSGH, please discuss with me any concerns you have with my edits before you revert them. I'm open to thoughtful discussion.

LSGH,

Could we collaborate on this Wikipedia article about the Son Tay Raid. The article has a number areas of weak phrasing and references. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I'd like help understanding the appropriate way to contribute. I am quite well read on the topic of the Son Tay Raid. My father was an aircraft commander in Vietnam during the raid and I personally know all the living members that participated in the raid. I'm a member of the Son Tay Raiders Association and we have been performing copious research in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the raid this November. I had a conversation with the AFSOC Historian, Tim Brown, this past week. I've read all the books on the subject mentioned in the references. There are more I can contribute. I have compiled a quite exhaustive presentation with quotes I've gathered from not only participants, but most importantly, POWs. To a man, the latter testify to the tremendous benefits immediately reaped by them as a direct result of the raid. All said, the word "failure" does not apply, neither to the mission execution nor the intelligence community. Documentation, including President Nixon's memo of Nov 18th clearly understood the risk that there'd be no POWs. In fact, the mission was designed, not to rescue all the POWs (85% of the POWs in the country were understood to be at other POW camps), but primarily to SEND A MESSAGE. He and the commanders consciously approved the "go," knowing that, like the Doolittle Raid, the real intent was to send a message (to the NVA, to the families of POWs, and hopefully to the POWs themselves) that America would do whatever it took to bring the POWs home. Let's talk. -Cliff CliffWestbrook (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffWestbrook (talk • contribs) 04:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olaso house

The current olaso house article isn’t accurate and my changes (to such I have dedicated a good time of investigation) have been undone. It may be an issue in the form but the current data I wrote was more accurate than the one currently displayed that clearly is written to glorify and give more notoriety to hose Rufino than the one he really had. I would be open for a conversation and to present my data Ivaninovuelven (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Rich

Why you delete my edit_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiceurope15 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removals

Please explain this mind boggling edit where you removed every report but your own for a username that afaict, isn't actually a violation? Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was gonna say please don't remove earlier Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention posts when you make one. Also, Karl Marx has been relegated to the dustbin of history (14 March 1883). Do you really think anyone whould think this is him? Besides, how do you know it;s not his real name? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the "being discussed with users". They are not declines. They might wind up needing blocking after all. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

@Praxidicae: Karl Marx is already dead, but the username is too similar to his name. I do not know what TD stands for. I checked the user's contribs, and they were related to present-day Irish politicians, but that is still a topic related to politics, which could attract some wrong impressions from others. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I felt the need to remove those declined reports because they were already there for too many hours already (they are still there). I once saw someone remove such kind of reports because they were already "seen by too many eyes", so I thought it was fine to do so. Even the notice on the page says that "volunteers and patrollers are asked to remove reports that have been declined", which I thought was the case, as the backlog at the time could keep on growing. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to inquire

Hi LSGH, I reverted your addition to UAA the other day with a direct ping. I figured you may stop by my talkpage so I left it until now. What was the motivation behind Black Lives Matters being marked as an "offensive username"? There is a lot of ongoing discussion about the topic in the world today, and I just wanted to clarify the intention. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: Hello. Since I saw that the user in question had already been blocked, I thought there was no further action needed. Those "X Lives Matter" movements have been all over social media, and even I get confused as to which among those try to push for certain causes. Movements such as "White Lives Matter", "All Lives Matter", and "Blue Lives Matter" came up, and there are already so many of them that I cannot already know so well which corresponds to which. I marked that username as "offensive" because I could not already determine what particular cause it was trying to promote. Even if it was not the case, it would have still qualified for a UAA report because the username represents a well-known movement (whatever it was for) on social media. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Yes, the intentions are good. But some participating groups there resort to violence already. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to use that little care to verify your facts before saying something, then your going to be fully blocked sooner than you think. Some parts of movements can be violent, but not everyone (or even likely a majority) in a group is violent. That's painting a picture that you want to see instead of what is. Also if you don't know why you should be reporting something, don't report it until you find the reason. The complete lack of care or understanding that is going to your reports is excessively disruptive as shown by the numerous sections above this. Therefore, I'm instituting a partial block for the Wikipedia-space until you can show that you can put time, effort and care into your reports. I don't care to template you, so there won't be an additional message. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: I will recuse myself indefinitely from making additional reports to those noticeboards. My apologies. I accept the partial block. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your talk page, I do not recommend the use of power tools like TWINKLE. You need to be more careful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please remember that whilst you're blocked from the Wikipedia-space, you aren't from the Talk-space. Reverting edits like this[6] is fine, but they really needed a friendly message on their Talk advising why what they were doing was problematic. Don't forget that newer editors aren't always up-to-speed on COI policies. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's a collection of warning templates at WP:WARN that may be useful --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do look at that page and copy the substitution codes there, though I used that sparingly. Although if that is a really effective means to deter them from doing disruptive habits, then I could use them more often. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you blocked. I think your comments on SPI page were very much reasonable (thank you for discussion!). As about user name you reported, I do not think it was offensive, but it was an unduly credit. Usurping names of currently active political movements which the user is presumably going to represent (why? who gave him such rights?) means to act as an impostor. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Hello and thanks as well! I looked at it again, and yes, it would have still been reported to UAA but due to a different reason (it could be impostor or promotional). I also had a few other errors there, such as two users whose names include references to Karl Marx, and others who used real names and also edited articles where they clearly had COI, but the most recent error was much more sensitive. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might request an unblock (see here) if you think you can do better and can explain what was your problem and how exactly you are going to do better in the future. For example, if the problem were your reports, you may promise do not make certain types of reports or ask an advice from someone prior to reporting. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it does work well. I'd leave a message on her talk page and see if some negotiation could do. I might not request a full unblock, as the problem that she pointed out was very specific to UAA, but other noticeboards are also affected. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a formal note that there was a change of block and comments left on my talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi. I noticed that he reversed my edition in the template of coronavirus cases in Guatemala and mentioned it as "vandalism". Did you at least verify the changes I made? Yesterday, the Ministry of Health published new updated data and claimed that they have incorrectly entered the cases of the assets and recovered. Before categorizing something as "vandalism," you should do more research. Stalin990 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalin990: At first glance, I would not know immediately why the number of recoveries would jump so suddenly. I have not yet seen a bulletin for July 18. I would not know that that was your intent because there was even no edit summary that would explain why the data would have to be changed. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Najib Razak

On 28 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Najib Razak, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 23:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you so much for keeping the coronavirus by country templates (sub-templates of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data) updated, especially from June afterwards! Without you, these templates would have been long outdated as i can't handle updating them in over a month. SMB99thx Email! 05:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMB99thx: Thanks! The work there is somewhat tiring but fruitful. Sadly though, there are still a few more outdated templates, and some websites do not have their figures updated consistently, so there's much more to look around into. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 18:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NHL updates

Dude, I appreciate you trying to help out with the NHL pages, but you're creating edit conflicts with me. Plus, I've had to fix every single edits that you've made so far on the articles that you have edited. Just let me handle the updating please. I don't intend on sounding offensive, but if I did, I apologize. Yowashi (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yowashi: Hi. My apologies as well; there are things that I overlook by mistake and forget to add or remove. Not that I am in a rush to add the result of those games, but I might not yet be that familiar with how to do some things there. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you to know how to do things on your first few attempts. But I mean, after a while, editors should generally start learning from other editors' edits and try to improve as time goes on. Which is most of the time, not the case. It's just frustrating because I spend a lot of time trying to prep the NHL stuff before all the IP's get to it, and then you (not you specifically) try to publish your edit, and then somebody else has already published their own changes. So that's kind of the annoying part. Your NBA stuff is good though. Since February I've been editing both the NHL and NBA stuff, but it's just too much work. Especially when I have to edit 60 different articles during the regular season. It's been nice that you've been cutting down my work load for the NBA stuff, so I hope you continue to work on those, as I'm not as committed to editing the NBA pages as much as I am with the NHL pages. Again, sorry if I came off rude earlier. Yowashi (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yowashi: I don't think that was rude though. It's fine anyway, as you have a better grasp of how the stats of an NHL game are added there. I do look at the diffs when you correct something, so that I could remind myself of what else not to miss when updating the game logs. I've been following the two leagues for a few years now, but I still want to expose myself to more NHL stuff since hockey games are not available to watch on free TV in my country. Even then, it's easy to follow along, and there's a lot of reading material about them off-wiki. Thanks for the advice and cheers! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you're always welcome to contribute to any NHL related stuff. I'm just saying that the game log section of the 2019–20 articles are very important sections to edit right now, and I'd prefer if I was the one that updated them just to avoid having to fix other people's edits. Other than that, you're allowed to edit the articles and make any improvements that you feel are necessary. Yowashi (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ramón, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramón López.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Finals

Thanks for catching the typo. Just a note, however, that links to plural words are usually not piped per MOS:PIPESTYLE i.e. [[three-point field goal]]s is preferred. Also, there is no requirement to use serial commas (MOS:SERIALCOMMA). Reagrds.—Bagumba (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedriczwaleta

Hi, it appears that you have reverted this edit here. I want to tell who is behind that IP (190.246.118.103) was. It's Bedriczwaleta. I know them as a disruptive editor who has no intentions of following the Wikipedia policies (IP socking is the most obvious, but also WP:BRD and uncivil behavior (sending death threats)), even after confronting him on his personal website (Type Design .netlify - I intentionally did not link the website because it contains horrendous information he likes to post - I've tried to get him to stop but he doesn't care what I say even the nicest thing I could have done and even sent me a death threat). Since he may come back after his IPs (190.246.118.103, 201.231.9.237, 186.111.128.0/20) get unblocked, if you notice after these IPs, you could file the SPI of his IP socks in here. I'm sorry to bother you here, but i want to let you know. Thank you, SMB9 9thx my edits 02:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot one thing: you could notice him by removing |togglesbar= parameters or adding unneccessary and complex parameters to these templates in guise of "reformatting" (or unexplained edits), or even original research at these templates (which led to adding these complex parameters in the first place). SMB9 9thx my edits 03:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMB99thx: Thanks for informing me. I don't think it's clear to him that such changes are not always welcome. I've come across some such IPs, but I do not know if they belong to any of the IP ranges that he uses. If this escalates further, maybe this can become an LTA case? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	After got several backlash from users you have reverted against, and even got partially blocked, it appears that you managed to get away from these problems and became a very active contributor in COVID-19 articles! SMB9 9thx my edits 11:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I actually thought about that block for a really long time, and it still pops into my mind from time to time. It's one reason why I diverted my energy to do more COVID-19 related stuff. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Now you aren't going for anti-vandalism operations, but when you did it earlier this year, why you didn't get this one? SMB9 9thx my edits 11:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! I had committed occasional errors there, and some admins even kept on reminding me what not to do. But I got discouraged by that partial block, and now I have more off-wiki work to do, so I might not really go back there yet. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, LSGH. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. SMB9 9thx my edits 23:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's two emails, not one. BTW, once again I forgot to note that it's not just frustration, but any interaction, including helping him mentally, will be his emotional food as Nicholas Velasquez suggested to me. I'm sorry for that, but it's important in fight against future Bedriczwaleta socks. I wish Bedriczwaleta is willing to be like Delonte West but he doesn't want that. That disappointed me a lot... SMB9 9thx my edits 00:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMB99thx: Hopefully, I can reply there within this week. For some weeks now, I already have lots of off-wiki workload to do, and it's taking up so much of my time already. But thanks in advance for any message that you want to impart there. I hope that things get better very soon. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LSGH, Thank you, I'll be patient. BTW, I just started a LTA casepage, just in case that if this user intensifies their sockpuppetry. SMB9 9thx my edits 06:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to back out from continuing this fight against these socks, as they are too much for me. Once in a while I might help some, but I want to pass the torch so to be able to do things I want to do - which is college and in Wikipedia, drafts. Thank you. SMB9 9thx my edits 11:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden revert?

What was with the sudden revert? 🤔 Ṉight Ḻantern ^🏮 10:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Night Lantern: Hi. I found it disturbing; it had already been happening for around two weeks already. We are probably watching the same press conference, so that should have been fine. But that was just too fast. It then happens that being late there by even a couple of minutes has become unacceptable already, which should not be the case. In fact, a lot of other countries in that template have their data updated hours after the cited sources there have their data published, and there is no requirement that the template data should be updated at the very instant that the new data is published. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LSGH: Well if that is the case.. 🤔 I'll just let you to update each of the countries until the recent statistics on their respective website had been updated throughout the day. My apologies for the quick update though. 😅 Ṉight Ḻantern ^🏮 13:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I don't think it's a rationale thing to revert my edits on the template just because of your own personal reflection as "unnecessary code addition". Thank you. CyberTroopers (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia COVID Data?

I haven't been able to find updated data in https://www.boliviasegura.gob.bo/datos.php Since Thursday 19-th. Where are you getting the data from? (Reference in the chart page is still that site)

Vexorian (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

If you want to keep it empty, I can WP:SALT it for you. Just let me know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Hi and thanks for the offer. I'm planning to create one, but it would not be available yet for at least a few more months. Sure, I would like to have it salted for now. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		The importance of up-to-date and accurate COVID-19 data cannot be understated. Thank you for your dedication and work (over 3600 edits) on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Thanks a lot! It's much more important now as several countries are grappling with this seemingly endless second wave. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A small change that would make life easier for other editors.

Hi! There is a small change that you could make in the way you do things that would make life easier for other editors. I am not saying that you are doing anything wrong; just making a request.

When I looked at my watchlist this morning I saw a bunch of comments by various people. Most of them had edit comments like these:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎: Dianne Feinstein's health: Replying to Kolya Butternut
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia‎: Bug in detection of wrong ISBNs?: Done
Solid-state drive‎: Added a little bit information about External SSD
Forth (programming language)‎: Have added, that the RCA 1802 had a Forth language made for it

With those edit summaries I could immediately tell whether it was something I needed to respond to, something to read later, or something I could ignore.

On the other hand, when I saw this edit on my watchlist[7] all I saw was

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical): Replying

Leaving me no way to know what the edit was about without opening the page.

It would have been more helpful if you had written an edit summary like "section edits and blank lines". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already use detailed edit summaries in most circumstances. However, when replying to comments by others, regardless of the topic, I would almost always use that kind of edit summary. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated data updates?

Hi LSGH, do you use any kind of automation/bot/script to edit templates? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Hello. No, I do my edits manually. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	My sincere thanks for keeping data about the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania updated. Your edits are appreciated! Super Ψ Dro 21:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines

Hello LSGH, I've just added a new record high today and I've noticed in your edit that you've reverted it back to the record that DOH reported on March 22. I've just want you to let it know regarding it. Thanks! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VictorTorres2002: Hi and thanks for pointing that out. I had already seen that when I updated the chart and the article, but unfortunately, I had to run into an edit conflict with you. The edit conflict interface appears to allow me to choose only one version of the paragraph. It's disappointing that we're seeing such record high numbers being reported several times this week, but there would still be a need to update that part of the paragraph a few more times. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LSGH, No problem though, at least HueMan changed it back to the record high recorded today (March 25). Hopefully the 2-week 'NCR Plus' bubble could lower the daily cases very soon. Cheers! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 Minnesota Timberwolves season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Edwards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NHL

Hey, those stats can be included as they reflect the current season. The leaders are listed in the specific stats section of each team website. Kante4 (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Thanks, I see it now. I'm not sure if those are always updated immediately after each game. There's no indication of when the stats are last updated. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LSGH: Yes, the team leader stats are usually updated after every game. Player stats are usually updated every five games instead of after each game as me, Yowashi and other editors have had to fix incorrect stats. Xolkan (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xolkan: Why is that so? Both sets of stats for each team come from the same source. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Benjamin Netanyahu

Hi! Sorry for reverting one of your edits. I don't know why, but on my computer it made it look like you had made the image on the article extremely wide, but after checking the revision after it appeared to be a visual error on my computer. I've fixed it. Have a great day! Flalf^Talk 18:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flalf: Hi. Thanks for making it clear. Some might think that I am violating some of the sanctions in that topic area. The incorrect image size might be an issue that is related to your browser. Which image are you referring to? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was the infobox image, seems to be fine now. Sorry for for causing trouble! Flalf^Talk 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan COVID-19 article

Thank you very much for keeping the statistics in the infobox and graphs for the Pakistan COVID-19 article up-to-date. I used to be maintaining the statistics section, maps, and first few paragraphs of that article until about August last year, but stopped mainly due to things IRL that had higher priority. Recently I came back and when I did, I saw that you've been updating the article every single day since then with the latest statistics. That takes real dedication, and no doubt it's helped many hundreds of people who've visited this article throughout the past few months. I appreciate your work immensely. Have one of these:

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Good work!

-- Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbasi786786: Thank you! This is very much appreciated. Yes, it is time-consuming, but it benefits everyone. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 Barnstar

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		For continuous significant contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the disease COVID-19. Ear-phone (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone: Thank you! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rfd edit summaries

Hello LSGH, a minor observation. When you vote in the Rfd, you can mention the specific redirect for which you voted. The page history shows everyone's vote automatically against the redirect section, but not yours. So even though you mention in the summary as "Adding delete vote", it does not help much without context. Jay ^(Talk) 06:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You again mentioned "Adding retarget vote" at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17 but there was no mention of which redirect. Jay ^(Talk) 11:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

Thank you for your trust and confidence. Please call on me if I can be helpful or if I'm out of line. BusterD (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: You're welcome! Sure, I'll inform you when I have any concerns. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Possible sockpuppetry

Hi. Indeed it looks like those two accounts (Joplin201017 and Javito1993) are related. However, I should point out that 1) their edits seem to be largely constructive and done in good faith, and 2) both Javito as well as the IP through which he used to edit prior to creating that account were blocked due to a misunderstanding as the user in question failed to reply to several attempts to establish communication with them from me as well as a handful of other users who were willing to give them advice, but he doesn't really seem to be a disruptive editor or a vandal, even though the blocks were the thing that made them pay attention to their talk page. CodeMars04 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeMars04: Even if those edits were done in good faith, they do not change the fact that block evasion is happening. You may want to look at this SPI. Javito1993 was unblocked, but there was strong evidence that other accounts also did the same kinds of edits, so another indef block had to be imposed. Perhaps he still thinks that there is nothing wrong with his editing behavior. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Thank you for your dedication and work on COVID-19 pandemic related topics. Especially your work on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and COVID-19 pandemic in India. Pachu Kannan (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu Kannan: Thank you! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EST COVID 19-cases

In this case appears to be rational to wait for the blog on a News page; sometimes the graph is “more updated”, sometimes not; usually not; otherwise, great work, thanks! (overlooking the fact (so they say) that every keystroke contributes to global warming...;-) — Pietadè (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pietadè: On some days, the graph updates first, but on other days, the blog updates first. I do not know why the number of deaths is not always updated at the same time as the rest of the graph. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LSGH: Basing on experience, so far, appears to be safer to wait for the blog; e.g., «Ööpäeva jooksul suri 2 koroonaviirusega nakatunud inimene» [~during past twenty-four hours two (2) COVID-19 infected person died] — ‘person’ should/must be in plural, that implies on some “AI” mess...; yet “Ööpäeva jooksul surmajuhtumeid ei registreeritud” means: no new deaths were registered during past 24hrs — presents quite solid statement... — Pietadè (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pietadè: Was there something amiss yesterday? Newer blogs do not mention the number of deaths anymore. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read only today on their news page: "Suri neli koroonaviirusega nakatunud inimest: 74-aastane naine, 86-aastane naine, 93-aastane naine ja 98-aastane naine." = “~ 4 covid-19 infected persons died: 74 y-old woman...", «5» was incorrect. Another page reads (in bold, in bottom part): "Kokku on Eestis surnud 1319 koroonaviirusega nakatunud inimest." (~Total 1319 people have died...) — Pietadè (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In today's report, it was mentioned that there are seven new deaths. That means there should be a total of 1,422 deaths. However, the sentence below the graph is saying that there is a total of 1,429 deaths. Which is correct? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, almost always waiting for the results published on news page, and, currently it says "Suri seitse" [7 died], so, simply adding 7 to a previous number; as for «1429», one has to wait for explanation (some kind of backlog, though, highly unlikely, imho), or, the number shall be corrected without any explanation...☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By now (13:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)) both pages display the same number, 1422.☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 13:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is good that they noticed the error. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today it took (them?) some 90 mins to correct from 1597 to 1595...☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 10:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today there is a difference of 4 cases — sent an email to them...☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Received an answer – apparently one has to follow the numbers published on data page and the changes made there (a system much like to UK's system).☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 20:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay medical cases chart

Hey! Sorry to bother, but could you take a look at this chart and see what's wrong with it? I barely have time to edit these days, so I'd appreciate if you could help fixing the error it has. Thanks. — MrE (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrE: Hello and thanks for updating the chart. I am not familiar with Lua, so I do not know what kind of fix should be done there. New data is still being added properly, so that should not be incorrect. Removing |state=expanded does not solve the problem either. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to compare it to other charts to see if there was something I missed but nothing beyond usual was added. I don't know if you know any other user that could help with it, because I don't. Hope it gets solved soon. — MrE (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrE: Sadly, I do not know anyone else who could fix Lua errors. I suggest that you go to WP:VPT so that other editors who are familiar with Lua can help out. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrE: I just found out that there was a typo here. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hadn't noticed 😔 — MrE (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria medical cases chart

Any thoughts regarding data in this table? The same and only page (Актуална информация за Covid 19 в България) / URI seems to be updated daily, yet not clear, when exactly... (the same goes for ITA vers, and both are kind of “time critical” — if U miss one day U loose the data...); just in case I'm not online. — Pietadè (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pietadè: As far as I know, Bulgaria updates its data daily, but I do not know where old data could be found easily. There is a different source that is listed here, and there is a phrase, Информация към 00:00, which translates to "Information at 00:00", pertaining to midnight. Similar ArcGIS dashboards usually allow viewers to look for old data, but it is not the case with Bulgaria. It appears that they post news articles here, but finding data from separate news articles would be too tedious to do. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer! — Pietadè (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021–22 Denver Nuggets season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Green.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021–22 Indiana Pacers season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Duarte.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]