User talk:GreenComputer

Hi my name is Letho Msani they call me Max

Introduce yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethukuthula Msani (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages

Hi, Please read wp:Archive, Talkpages are to be archived not blanked, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: The {{sourcecheck}} template in the "External links modified" section said the section could be deleted, linking to this RfC. Is this inaccurate? GreenComputer (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I wasn't aware of that, Generally speaking these sorts of messages should just be archived, Talkpage messages are rarely deleted unless it's vandalism or spam, I would assume the delete option would be referring to those where this is the only message on that talkpage and no others are on it that's atleast how I would percieve it as like I said messages are never deleted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wachowskis

Hi, I've noticed you've undone an edit on The Wachowskis with an edit summary of See WP:GID. I'm not sure I'm understanding how that applies to that edit - please could you clarify for me? Cheers! stwalkerster (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've seen you've just added a hatnote to that page, nevermind! :) stwalkerster (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian actors

Hi! I've reverted your move of List of Italian actors, which appears to have been done without prior consensus or discussion (which of course is OK as long as the move is uncontroversial). Since "actor" is a word which already implies and denotes maleness, it hardly seems necessary to preface it with "male". If you still think the page should be moved, please start an ordinary requested move discussion. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Could you move Talk:List of Italian male actors back too, so that I can start the requested move in the correct place (a bot has edited the redirect, so I can't do it myself)? Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh, thanks! Done that, no idea how it got left behind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesse James Keitel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 18 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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hirst

Thank you for reverting the first edit, I weren't aware / have not read note about her wishes. I think my other change is Ok, just stating facts about name change with references. I had trouble noticing from the articel that sex change took place. I hope you find it ok. Cheers. Minikola (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted my last edit wit response that there should be talk on your talk page before editing, yet you are not responding to my message on your talk page. Article is not precise without mentioning that sex change took place, sex change is not mentioned as 3 sources imply and also in the article is not mentioned that personal name is changed, too. Those are all valid informations and sources.Minikola (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minikola: I gave the reasons why I reverted your edit in my edit summary. Discussion of whether to include your changes or not should happen on the article talk page at Talk:Stephanie Hirst to allow other editors to participate (sorry I wasn't explicit about which talk page I meant). GreenComputer (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should source that she doesn't want "trans woman" to be used and put it in the article. Don't just revert and leave it at that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: See the relevant discussion in the talk page archive. GreenComputer (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Mochrie

You acknowledged in your edit summary that a discussion is on going. You don't remove that information until the discussion is closed. Also, you're tidying of the infobox, though appreciated, you left out the American version of "Whose Line Is It Anyways?" from his notable works. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: WP:ONUS clearly states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Given that consensus to include the disputed content has not been reached (especially given that this is a WP:BLP), the disputed content should be removed until consensus is achieved to include it. With regards to the infobox, I didn't change the actual text of the notable works entry ("British and American versions of Whose Line Is It Anyway?"), just the formatting. Feel free to separate them onto two separate lines if you think that would be better. GreenComputer (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't link to one version of the show and just say he was on both. It's redundant. Plus, there is a general article for Whose Line Is It Anyways which would be the obvious one to link to. But I'll fix it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gender unclear

Template:Gender unclear has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ExoticViolet (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato

Hi: can you point me to any Wikipedia documentation backing up your claim that pronoun clarifications belong on the talk page, not tin he article itself? The former helps only editors, not the average (potentially confused) reader. Thanks for further clarification. Finney1234 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finney1234: I reverted your edit because you placed the {{Article pronouns}} template on the article page; however, the template is a talk-page-only template (you can tell by its orange/brown background colour). I've replied to you further in the article talk page section you created. GreenComputer (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenComputer: Thanks for the clarification; I haven't worked with templates before and didn't know about relevance of background colors. Given that the default English interpretation of they/them/their is as plural pronouns, I think there is a general issue of confusion in articles like this, and I added a topic to Template_talk:Article_pronouns. (Hopefully it is obvious that I have no objection to the use of non-binary pronouns, but I do think that it is important that Wikipedia articles be understandable to a wide audience). Finney1234 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 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) 00:46, 23 November 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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]