Welcome!

Hello, Getsnoopy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.A.T.O. has specific on page of expenses in dollars and not in euro's. Seems to be a mistake? Or definite attempt to mislead and abscond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.185.137.72 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not required to use ISO country codes as discography chart column abbreviations[edit]

There is no requirement to do this. It may be required when we abbreviate country names (as in template coding) in other areas of Wikipedia; it isn't for discography columns. WP:DISCOGSTYLE is widely followed despite not being a formal guideline, and also, WP:NOTUSA applies—we don't abbreviate the US to "USA". Recognizability (SWI for Switzerland, for example) trumps ISO formality at least when it comes to column abbreviations in music areas of Wikipedia. Thanks. Ss112 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that topic-specific MOS page. But the issue with that, of course, is what is "an abbreviation" for a country going to look like? "SWD" could be a valid abbreviation, which applies to Switzerland as well as Sweden. When I first saw "SWI", I had no idea what it was and had to hover over the link to see where it linked to or what the tooltip said (my first thought was Swaziland, frankly). WP:NOTUSA doesn't apply in this case because the text is not in prose, but a special case of codes/abbreviations (it would make sense if the context was going from "Norway" to "Nor." or the like, for example, but in this case, it's "Norway" to "NOR").
I didn't change it because it was necessarily a requirement, but that the inconsistency lent itself being standardized with something as ubiquitous as ISO. As for recognizability, everyday people deal with ISO codes on a daily basis in the sense of country-code top level domains (ccTLDs; e.g., .ch for Switzerland). As such, that would be far more recognizable to people than an ad hoc abbreviation "SWI". Granted, it would be a fair point to argue that it's the alpha-3 code in this case rather than the alpha-2 that most people are familiar with, which I could be convinced by if it was suggested that we use those instead, but I think consistency is important. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reverting edits solely due to lack of edit summary[edit]

I am a huge proponent of informative edit summaries, yet even I can admit that it's not good form to revert edits solely due to lack of edit summaries; please review WP:FIES for more analysis of this. I've also reverted unexplained edits, but typically in situations where the edits run afoul of accuracy rather than perceived consensus. In addition, edit summaries that have no actual content and require editors to open the diff to see what happened are just as bad as no summaries at all, again per WP:FIES. For example, I had to open this diff to figure out what exactly is going on with all of this reversion business because the edit summary was useless, and given that discussion is regarding a topic that occurred on some other page with only one other editor, I admit that I'm still not sure what exactly is going on here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I admit that my original edit summary could've been better, but the reversion of it without explanation is bad in this case because it's an issue of misleading the user / misrepresenting facts. It's not bad form since it being an issue of "perceived consensus" wasn't the only reason; the reason for that edit, which is a clarification, was originally discussed on the page itself (and a corresponding edit was made in its Etymology section as well). Someone in the discussion later mentioned that it would need to happen on the accompanying names page, since that's where the details about it would suitably go, and reverted the change in the Etymology section. Now that the accompanying page has been edited, the main page is now somewhat in conflict with it; hence, the edit. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the background. To help resolve this, can you provide a diff or an archive link to the previous discussion mentioned in originally discussed on the page itself (and a corresponding edit was made in its Etymology section as well) on the Talk:United States page where the informally term was discussed? That's a good example of the context that would be legitimately helpful in edit summaries, particularly if you're directing editors to adhere to one specific version. Wikipedia lives and dies on verifiable content, including our own diffs. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the discussions I found:
The rest of the discussion happened on the subpage. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's helpful. My view after reading those discussions is that there were quite a few issues bundled together, and I feel that the outright use of the word "informal" wasn't quite settled. As for the names of the United States article, any discussion there has no bearing on the main article; indeed one of the points of subarticles is to go deeper into issues that the main article doesn't necessary need to. I'm going to re-read those discussions once more, and may bring this separately to Talk:United States and make sure that I acknowledge those discussions as well. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Liberland[edit]

Please stop reverting to your preferred version without consensus. Multiple editors object, and there is no consensus for the inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at United States[edit]

Hello. This regards your recent edits inserting "informally" before "America" in the lead at United States: here and here. Regarding the first edit and its edit summary what were you reverting? As far as I can tell, you first added "informally" on 26 November 2022 and it was removed on 9 December of that year (note the different editor). I didn't see that wording subsequently, until your recent edits. Regarding the second edit and its edit summary, where is the discussion that shows consensus on your side? I didn't find it. "America" might be "unsanctioned" (quoting Fowler quoting Evans's A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage), but perhaps not more than the various other shortenings. I think that "commonly" covers the simplifications, especially given that it's the lead. Further classifying belongs to the article body or even a separate article. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was reverting the people reverting the change when this discussion happened. The discussion is happening above (§ Regarding reverting edits solely due to lack of edit summary), as well as on Names of the United States.
As for "commonly", I clearly disagree. "Commonly" muddles the distinction between formal short names and colloquial names, which I can confirm by the fact that I've seen far too many people on the internet say that the Wikipedia article's lead says that "America is a commonly used name for the United States; therefore, it's just as much an official name for the country as 'the United States'". Almost all other country articles follow the pattern of Page title, officially <official name> and informally <unofficial names>, ... Given that this article's structure of the lead is flipped (it starts with the full official name), this is one way to convey that. I'm open to other ways of doing it, or ideally, flipping the structure to conform to the convention that most other country articles follow. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
America is what most of the world refers to the USA as. In Japanese, we primarily use America in formal settings. There are also organizations such as the MAA (Mathematical Association of America) too. I sense you're frustrated, but it's important to note that the previous version's use of "commonly" is accurate, whereas your wording might not universally apply. I personally suggest resolving any issues with your online peers separately, without bringing the conflict to this platform. Joelinton111Mes (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
America is what most of the world refers to the USA as. No, "the US" is. "America" referring to the US is firmly a colloquialism, and it's even acknowledged as such throughout WP, as well as other platforms, so it's definitely not "bringing the conflict to this platform". The US's official style guide always refers to itself as "the United States", as does the UN and basically every other international entity/forum. Japanese is a different language, so its conventions do not apply here.
Re: "commonly", the same goes for "Holland" for the Netherlands. In fact, it's so common that the official tourism website refers to the Netherlands as "Holland". Of course, this doesn't change the fact that that's an informal name for the country, and would be inappropriate for WP to not mention it as such, let alone use it in its articles. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed the fact there are cases of "America" being used officially. Your edit just decreases the accuracy of the page, seemingly just for the convenience of your own agenda (which is, just for your personal conversations online...?)
And yes, majority of the world refers to the USA as America.
And please do not propagate your agenda online (at least without us even reaching a consensus regarding the same issue here.) I have undone your recent changes to Names_of_the_United_States. Joelinton111Mes (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus and discussion to arrive at that version of the page (please look at the history of the page before doing anything), and the article was changed from that consensus without discussion.
As for "agenda", there is no agenda. It is just a clear representation of facts. Please do not revert or do anything until this discussion resolves. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for you: please stop edit warring. There was no consensus, but you are engaging in edit warring nevertheless. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More