User talk:Belbury

Hi Belbury, On 13 March 2023 in the article on Colour blindness, you removed File:Braeburn GrannySmith dichromat sim.jpg and replaced it with File:Assorted Red and Green Apples (deuteranope view).jpg. You did not change the caption, which reads "Simulation of the normal (above) and dichromatic (below) perception of red and green apples". Your edit comment was: "clearer example image". I have colour-vision deficiency of the kind the image is supposed to illustrate. The removed "Braeburn GrannySmith" image did, as far as I can tell, illustrate that deficiency perfectly—the lower pair is identical to the upper pair. It was therefore ideal for showing people without CVD the effect of the deficiency. On the other hand, in the "Assorted Red and Green Apples" image it is not clear what is being compared to what. It is just a picture of various apples. I venture that either the caption should be changed or the previous image restored ... or something; I can't tell. Any thoughts or explanation? Thanks and best wishes. - - Frans Fowler (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Frans Fowler: Thanks for the feedback and tracking down the edit! I was replacing an old placeholder example (where someone had found two very different public domain photos of apples and applied a filter to them) with a more natural version that showed red and green apples in the same lighting and context, with the same kind of filter applied. The intention was to give the typical reader a more striking example of how someone might see these apples in a store.

:The top half of the image is unfiltered, the bottom half is filtered. To me, the apples at the top appear red and green and those at the bottom appear yellow.

:I can see now that the "above/below" captioning isn't clear to all viewers! I've changed it to "top half of photo" and "lower half". Do you think that's enough, or would it help to also add a horizontal separator line across the middle of the image? Belbury (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::That was quick, and interesting. Thank you. I wouldn't spoil the (to some of us :o) rather attractive photo by putting a line through it. It might be an improvement, though, to add detail to the end of the caption—something like: People with normal color vision see the apples in the lower half as yellowish; people with red–green color blindness may not spot that difference between the upper and lower halves. - Frans Fowler (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, but I'm not sure it's necessary, so long as the caption has been made clear that the photograph is divided into two halves. The strong and immediate detail that we want the reader to take away from the caption is that red and green can look the same through dichromatic perception; it's less important to think about how yellow also looks. Belbury (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi Belbury, What I see in the current photo ("Assorted Red and Green Apples") is two varieties of apples. Those on the left have a rosy blush; those on the right are probably a green variety. If pressed to find a difference between the apples at the top and those at the bottom, I'd say both varieties are probably graded from less ripe at the top towards more ripe at the bottom. That is from a lifetime of trying, not always successfully, to learn the difference in appearance between ripe fruit and unripe fruit. If pressed to find a yellow apple, I'd have to guess it might be the middle apple in the top row. There doesn't seem to be any trace of yellow in the lower half of the picture at all. I am bound, respectfully, to disagree entirely with your 11:36, 22 February remarks. It would be interesting for readers with CVD (of whom many will be drawn to this article) to understand what the illustration illustrates. At the moment that is a mystery and thus, ironically, a CVD-accessibility issue on the page about CVD. I again recommend something along the lines I suggested above at 11:06, 22 February. Cheers --- Frans Fowler (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps raise this on the article talk page to get wider input? I'm not really sure of the best way to word this. Belbury (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! You removed my image of a chicken dust bathing on the dust-bathing page. You said that there were too many similar images on the screen. The reason I added this, was because there was a specific topic within the article about domestic chicken's dust bathing behavior, and thought that this image would benefit this topic. If you would need to remove something, I would recommend removing one of the many images of less specific house sparrow images (there are two), which is not specifically stated to in the text. TurtleFrog (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:@TurtleFrog: Hi, I removed several images, including two others of sparrows. You'd added the chicken image to the "Birds" section, where it didn't seem that usefully distinct from the turkey, but you're right that it would be useful in the "Domestic chicken" section. I've restored it there. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much! I really appreciate your understanding! Have a great day! TurtleFrog (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw your work and thought I might divert some of the abuse to me for my abusive messages collection. This may benefit from your comments 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Timtrent: Thanks for the context! I was just hoovering up a trail of obvious vandalism after seeing some spill across my watchlist. I don't think I have anything to add to the SPI, but will bear it in mind if I see similar edits again. Belbury (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::It quacks like a potential sock farm and loads out LOUTSOCKS. It just smells of socks to me.

::We meet in fun places, you and I. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hi Belbury! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Just10A (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please keep in mind that reversions can be reversions even if they do not use the "undo" feature. This is in relation to the Tesla Takedown page. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Just10A: Thanks, the edits to this page were actually already discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ratgomery reported by User:Belbury (Result: Stale ) this morning. Belbury (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have corrected the part that you returned where you thought thay the opinion piece from the defunct magazine the outline as in the article the writer didn't come to the conclusion that the British food was seen as unappealing due to food shortages which is the article it was next to but due to the sexual repression of the British people Sharnadd (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Belbury,

Thank you for your contributions and for the advice you provide on the discussion pages.

I often appreciate your wisdom and the quality of your interventions. But in my opinion, the template you submitted in good faith on my talk page is inappropriate.

The username of the user in question clearly breaks WP:U: {{xt|promotional.}}

This name you know is made up of three words: "USER + On + LB", where LB is the abbreviation for LetterBoxd, the famous social network dedicated to cinema. This user was trying to generate buzz to draw attention to their user account on LetterBoxd.

It's very easy to check. The account does indeed exist on LB, and many profiles on various sites such as YouTube, X/Twitter, Deviantart, Github, Rateyourmusic, Howlongtobeat, have been created with this unique username, identical to the one on Wikipedia.

It's always "USER + On + LB", like "JOHN ON FACEBOOK" or "TWENTY ON REDDIT", which obviously encourages you to search for JOHN on Facebook, or TWENTY on Reddit, from Wikipedia.

So it's contrary to WP:PROMONAME. This user engages in numerous edit wars and personal attacks, seems to act like a troll, and in fact, their X/Twitter account has been banned (hypothetically for the same reason).

You can also check on YouTube that the same username literally spells "Follow me on LB" with a direct link to the account on LetterBoxd. The intention is therefore clear. It's about promoting their account there.

And the more disruptions there are on Wikipedia, the more likely the account is to attract attention.

I deliberately didn't share the link in question (so as not to play along), and never published any name, surname, phone number, or personal information relating to this individual.

On the contrary, it was the user themselves who violated Wikipedia's rules. So I believe that this SPAMNAME spread by the person was deliberate.

We can't blame the person who denounces the existence, for example, of the username "TWENTY ON REDDIT" on Wikipedia for promoting REDDIT or TWENTY. It's rather the person responsible, that is, the owner of the problematic username,

who should take responsibility by complying with Wikipedia's rules. I admit that my exasperation wasn't ideally channeled.

The link to the banned account wasn't necessary; indeed, you did the right thing by removing it.

But this comment appeared in a context of repetitive and tiresome reverts, accompanied by personal attacks such as "idiot, use your brain for the first time in your life."

Furthermore, if you look at the personal attack contained in this user's penultimate comment, calling another participant a "psychopath", you'll realize that it's suspicious coming from a self-declared neurodivergent person (according to the history of their user page).

A person who truly suffered from neural disorders, and was therefore sensible to mental illness, would not attack someone else in this way. Thus, coming from a disruptive account (which has since been changed), these outbursts were truly unacceptable. I think the timeline unambiguously demonstrates that the harm was perpetrated unilaterally. Without any provocation. And since you and I have been peacefully interacting on this page for many months, with mutual respect and politeness, I think you should understand that my goal was laudable.

Unfortunately, the template that currently covers my page leads visitors to assume that I'm some kind of thug breaking collective rules. And that could get me into trouble.

So I would be very grateful if you would remove this misleading message. Of course, I will take its content into account and try to improve.

But I don't wish to be classified as a privacy violator, given that I didn't really act like that. It was the spammer account in question that was at fault in the first place, and was itself seeking to make a name for itself on LetterBoxd.

Not having a particular interest in cinema, I'm unlikely to interact with this participant on other articles that might interest them. The only thing I ask is that this person definitively cease hostilities and stop the wrong contributions to this article.

Everything is verifiable, and besides, these SPAM accounts have been archived here and there, so it's easy to find them. Don't hesitate to ask me if you feel the need.

I hope we can continue to contribute constructively to this encyclopedic platform and to collaborate. Best regards -- Tukp (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Tukp: WP:OUTING does explicitly say not to air this kind of "opposition research" on public talk pages, however easily it's done. If offsite content relates to a problem account it should be communicated privately to an administrator.

:Editors are free to remove messages from their own talk page if they wish to. Belbury (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, "easily it's done", I agree. Communicating privately with an administrator, I didn't know that was the thing to do. Thanks. -- Tukp (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, if you want to go talk to an administrator about a name I have since changed, go ahead. IzzySwag (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, you interacted with them too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for raising the question, I was also wondering what they meant by this. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yesterday you requested a speedy deletion of The Statesman Affidavit.

: Can you check again?

: I added the reception part. It's a new political invention like a written manifesto or integrity pledge, the only difference is that it is notarized under oath and with penalty clause of resignation.

: Like any other invention, the early part of adoptability is difficult. But I believe, that it has a potential.

: It can solve many problems of the world, it can filter the good and bad politician, and it can gradually reduce corruption and poverty.

I'm hoping that you will consider it to be back in the mainstream. Mjonellepeter (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Mjonellepeter: Hi Mjonellepeter. I think the deletion was correct at this point in time. Your idea is not yet a WP:NOTABLE one, by Wikipedia's measurements of that.

:Did you see the User talk:Mjonellepeter#Managing a conflict of interest section that was posted to your talk page a few days ago? Belbury (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Belbury, thanks. I just declared the Conflict of Interest in the talk section, as I'm the author and major contributor. Mjonellepeter (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Belbury, can we move it to the main page?

::As I'm pitching it to a major news company in the Philippines. Also, having a Wikipedia page gives it additional credence.

::I have nothing to gain here, it's just an affidavit with penalty clause. It's the common problem of all politicians around the globe to have many promises during the campaign period, I only proposed a solution for them to put it in affidavit with penalty clause, go to a notary office, and publicise it so the public can track after election.

::We are a third world country, and many nation still stuck being a third world country because of corruption and the lack of transparency and accountability.

::I'm also not also a political candidate this 2025, but I created it as a private citizen. I also removed the mention of my name in the description.

::Thanks. Mjonellepeter (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mjonellepeter: You should press the "submit for review" button on Draft:The Statesman's Affidavit when you believe it to be ready for the main page. But I can tell you now that what you've written will be rejected for having no secondary published sources. See WP:GNG.

:::The Help:Your first article guide may also be useful. Belbury (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Belbury, yes. I understand that it doesn't yet have any secondary published source.

::::If it's in the main page, I can link it from the affidavit wiki page so many people across the globe can see it. I think many are also searching for the anti corruption tool, and that affidavit qualifies as one.

::::Who will review it, after I click "submit for review".

::::Thanks. Mjonellepeter (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Mjonellepeter: It'll be assessed by one of Wikipedia's many volunteer reviewers. Belbury (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Belbury, you are right. It's now on draft again. Anyway, since it's new innovation, I understand. It's not yet cited by reputable media source.

::::::But have you read the content of it? What do you think of the idea - of having a resignation penalty clause for political promises?

::::::Thanks. Mjonellepeter (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Mjonellepeter: Sorry, don't see any sense in giving my thoughts to a person who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Statesman%27s_Affidavit&diff=prev&oldid=1287236976 ignores what I say to them]. Good luck with whatever you think you're doing, but please don't use Wikipedia to promote it. Belbury (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)