User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Stamets edit

15:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:@LR.127, thank you so much for my very first barnstar, this is super exciting for me!!!🥳🥳🥳

:Happy holidays to you as well! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't Chinese Tartary be mentioned? Doug Weller talk 13:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Doug Weller, please contextualize your question better. What are you asking me about Chinese Tartary? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Perhaps I should have said Tartarian Empire. Before you edited it, the lead said ", as well as areas in present Mongolia, China, and the Russian Far East in "Chinese Tartary"- which was wikilinked. I can't see any justification for removing it.. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Doug Weller, right, I see what you mean now. Chinese Tartary seems to be an archaic geographic term, and in the context where it was used, "and the Russian Far East in "Chinese Tartary", it didn't make sense to me. Do you think it contributes anything of value to the sentence, or the context? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::On further reflection, I would say it belongs as a see also. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Doug Weller, I'm not sure it's all that relevant to the topic, but I won't object if you decide to add it to See also. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think I will. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Added it as "Chinese Tartary, an archaic geographical term" Doug Weller talk 16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi David - I see we both made changes to this article today. I just wanted to check that you intended to add a tag to the Early Life & Education section that it "may be too technical for most readers to understand". It seems very straightforward to me, so I wanted to check with you.

Thanks Blackballnz (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Blackballnz, thanks for checking. I added the tag intentionally, as I found the terms "open exhibition" and "first-class degree" to be unclear to most readers without a British background. I suppose I could have tagged them individually though. Instead, would you be able to clarify them in the section? Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Revirvlkodlaku, I'll have a look and see if I can make these clearer. Blackballnz (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi - I've added a link from first class degree to the British undergraduate degree page article. I've also changed 'open exhibition' to 'place'. Open exhibition seems quite complicated to explain. I'll take the tag off now & I think the article is better than it was a couple of days ago. Blackballnz (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Blackballnz, that's perfect, cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku, your [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodhi_Tree&diff=prev&oldid=1274108671 revert here] didn't actually effect anything for those who don't use Android. My edit was just to make that wikipedia page should start with introduction, not direct three photos. I think your last 2 or 3 days edits or improvising made this look little odd for Android people. so i did a copyedit. before February, it was perfect for both Android and others users. i hope you got my point.
Kind regards. Callmehelper (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Callmehelper, I do see what you mean, and thank you for explaining. In future, I would just ask that you use an appropriate edit summary, as yours ("ce") was misleading. Revirvlkodlaku (talk)

Hello - to answer your question on the history of Romani people page - yes, Gypsy Rehabiliation Centre was an official name by the Government - which is shocking, but true. That's why it should be capitalised. Thanks!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Romani_people&curid=4536912&diff=1275360209&oldid=1275318795 diff][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Romani_people&curid=4536912&action=history hist] History of the Romani people 15:46 0 Revirvlkodlaku talk contribs (Undid revision 1275318795 by Alfeverett (talk) Why capitalize? Was it a proper name?) Tag: Undo thank Alfeverett (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Alfeverett, got it, thanks for explaining! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Since you so despise templates…

for info, your edit summaries (like at East Coast Main Line) are in Czech again. Danners430 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Danners430, no need for further snark—all of these incidents likely happened at the same time, and I'm now aware of the problem. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Revirvlkodlaku. You have just reverted an edition done by me. I put "Alphabet", just because the infobox states that :Sorang Sompeng is an "alphabet". And that's it. Could you please further explain if Sorang Sompeng is an alphabet or not? That would be very nice of you. Regards, Fadesga (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Fadesga, I see now that the infobox says alphabet, but I'm not sure why that is. As you may know, an :alphabet is a particular type of script, and as far as I can tell, the Sorang Sompeng script doesn't meet that description. To be clear, I'm not a linguist, but unless this is convention as far as the infobox is concerned, I think it shouldn't say alphabet. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that I reverted your latest edit about a US city, but wrote a wrong summary. I meant to say, "Please avoid using country abbreviations." Hikingboii (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Hikingboii, what's wrong with using "US"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::Articles about US cities don't use the United States abbreviation(s) in their short descriptions, so that's how you got my attention to your recent edits. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newark,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=1277077832] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newark,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=1277240551] Hikingboii (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Hikingboii, is that in the MOS? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Hikingboii, hoping to get a response from you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I did look at WP:MOS, but couldn't find it. That's just the way they make short descriptions in articles about US cities. Hikingboii (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Hikingboii, so it shouldn't be an issue if a short description uses "US" once in a while then, right? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Like I said, they don't use abbreviations in US city articles' short descriptions. I feel like it's because people may not know what they mean if they're from another country. So I'd rather use "United States" instead of "US" so that people from other countries can know the name of it. I also looked at MOS:ABBR and couldn't find it there as well. Hikingboii (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Hikingboii, that seems like a reasonable argument, but when the s/d is already pretty long, adding "United States" seems excessive. I'm also not convinced that most people reading enwiki wouldn't know what "US" stands for. From my point of view, using "US" when the s/d is long and "United States" when it's of a reasonable length is a good compromise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hmm… I guess maybe we should use "US" for some articles then. Hikingboii (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Hikingboii, thanks, I appreciate your flexibility 🙂 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::But just to let you know, when you make those edits to some of those articles, someone else can revert them at any time, so be careful of doing that. They might be assuming good faith as well. Also, please make sure that the state is also included in the s/d to make it a little more understandable for some viewers. Hikingboii (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to this page. Just so you know, the source was originally added by Jaydip2812, whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to add the infrainfohub.com website across multiple articles. The site itself may not look too bad at first glance, but it's set up like a blog, and the author of these blog posts is credited only by first name. I'm not going to remove it again, but it also doesn't seem like something that I recommend using as a reliable source. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Epicgenius, thanks for bringing this up. Your point is well taken, and I'll go ahead and remove the link. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Taking Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21#RfC: Linking non-major countries and other discussions into consideration regarding linking Madagascar in Antanimora Prison in the context of WP:OVERLINK, it seems that the guideline is not so cut and dry (otherwise the distinction between major and non-major, however vague, would not be made). On a personal aside, I found myself wanting a link to follow to Madagascar (while consuming the article as a reader). It is actually quite common to find 'major' countries linked in this fashion despite guidance against it. Given the grey of the situation at hand, might we go ahead and restore the link in this case? Thanks for the time, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Godsy, thanks for bringing this up. The reason I cited WP:OVERLINK is actually not the one you mentioned but rather the close succession of Antananarivo and Madagascar, which is addressed under the WP:OVERLINK#Principles section, under General points on linking style. I don't think both the city and country need to be linked, as that seems superfluous. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Despite the guidance (and as a generality from being around a long time and consuming a lot of content as an editor and a reader), the practice in question seems much more common than not linking the country (at the very least, not uncommon by any means). Take some examples from List of Prisons even: Bathurst Correctional Centre, Alice Springs Correctional Centre, Carandiru Penitentiary, El Manzano (prison), Blegdamsvej Prison, Harku Prison. Coupling that with the vague notion of non-'major'ness, I do find the link particularly useful in this case. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Godsy, it's possible that has more to do with an eagerness to link than with any sort of convention. If you think it's important enough, go ahead and link it, but I think it's redundant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted an edit I did on the Luna Wedler page. In it you wrote: "Please only add linked entries". I didn't understand. If you meant only linked links to other Wikipedia entries, two other Luna Wedler's films in that list don't link to any existing page. If you meant another thing like I don't know a link to a page that shows that Luna worked in that film in particular (altough the other films in that list didn't have a link to anything either), well in IMDB she appears as an actress in that film. I know that some people think IMDB is unreliable. If that's the case, I could share an screenshot of the film's credits when you could see that she worked in that particular movie.

:@User:Emilerudoy2, a few comments for you:

1. New messages/comments should go at the bottom of the page, not the top.
2. Please don't forget to sign your comments (using four tildes).
3. The reason there are a few unlinked entries in Wedler's filmography is because they are mentioned within the article, and as her debut appearances, they bear some significance. I get that these are somewhat subjective/discretionary criteria, but I think that in general, selected filmographies should be kept tidy by only including linked and/or referenced entries.
4. As I mentioned in my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luna_Wedler&diff=1279261868&oldid=1279190058 revert summary], if you're going to go head and start a talk page discussion with a dissenting editor (this is a good thing to do!), wait until you've achieved some kind of compromise or agreement with them instead of also undoing their edit/revert. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:I saw that you again reverted the entry. Do you need the screenshots of the actual film so that could be a reliable source for you? Emilerudoy2 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::@User:Emilerudoy2, did you read the four points I took the time to write out for you above? Please respond to them so we can continue this conversation with the proper context and comprehension. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I still believe that the reference to Lăutărească music I've added to "See more" section is ok. It's relevant and it's much better elaborated than Lăutari. Iurii.s (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Iurii.s, how about we switch them then, so both aren't included? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds good to me, I'll switch them then. Thanks @Revirvlkodlaku. Iurii.s (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem confused about what is going at John Popper. A user added two [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=prev&oldid=1279389238 unsourced] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=prev&oldid=1279389001 edits], and I restored the page to the previous version before the unsourced edits. You then reverted it twice, first claiming I "didn't remove anything" (I did) and that my second reversion was "silly" (it wasn't). I hope you can review the page history to prevent this from happening a third time. Thanks. Rift (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Rift, I see what happened now. Unfortunately, in your attempt to remove one unsourced line ("Sherri "Gidget" Fisher married October 12, 2024-present"), you reverted a bunch of minor but useful edits that improve backend layout appearance. Please be more cautious about that in the future. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Revirvlkodlaku: Again, you still seem confused. Please examine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=prev&oldid=1279389001 this edit] again. There was no "bunch of minor but useful edits"; the only other thing the user added was spaces after some "|" characters. Another careful examination of the page history will hopefully clear this up for you. Rift (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rift, that's what I mean—those are useful adjustments to backend layout. Not a big deal though, I can restore them without adding unreferenced content. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I need your help. I've been working on the article Draft:Thaathi Adam for some time now. I’ve put a lot of effort into establishing notability with proper sources and references, but the last time it was declined, the feedback mentioned that while the subject is likely notable, the draft "reads like an advertisement". Since you’ve provided valuable input on articles like Niuma Mohamed and Nashidha Mohamed, I was hoping you could take a look at this one as well. I’ve tried to maintain a neutral tone, but it seems there are still some issues. I would really appreciate your assistance in publishing this article. ShappeAli (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @ShappeAli, I'm on a cross-country hike at the moment, so I only have access to the mobile version of Wikipedia. Please give me about a week to get back to you on this. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @ShappeAli, I haven't heard back from you. Do you still need help with the Thaathi Adam page? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, yes! If you get some time, would really appreciate if you could review the page. ShappeAli (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @ShappeAli, I've done a copy edit on the draft, and I think it should be ready for resubmission. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your input. ShappeAli (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@ShappeAli, you're welcome! I hope the draft gets approved 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://www.thenewsminute.com/flix/nayanthara-s-next-co-co-heroine-centric-dark-comedy-65673 this] worth describing it as a black comedy? The source says, "It will be a female-oriented dark comedy on the lines of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan". Kailash29792 (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know, @Kailash29792, is "dark comedy" the same as "black comedy"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::It indeed is. I'll add this source soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I deprodded this. It has one reliable source. Articles about Filipino music are extremely controversial: people have been killed over their taste in music at karaoke bars. Prod is for non-controversial topics. Take it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe the SD in Gandhara grave culture article should be changed from Aspect of Pakistani history to Archaeological culture in northwest South Asia (or some iteration of it) (one of the sources in the lead uses the term) since per the article, it included parts of modern Afghanistan and India. Similar changes should be reflected in the lead sentence as well. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Fylindfotberserk, I think "Archaeological culture in northwest South Asia" is unnecessarily long. Personally, I'm fine with "Aspect of Pakistani history", though the recently reverted "Archaeological culture of modern-day Pakistan" seemed appropriate as well, as this culture seems to have indeed been centred on present-day Pakistan.

:Thanks also for removing the abusive comment I hadn't previously noticed from an irate editor. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Most welcome {{p}}. I was going to change it to "Archaeological culture of modern-day Pakistan" myself, but thought of discussing it with you considering the lead paragraph. "Aspect of Pakistani history" gives of a vibe that it is about the modern state of Pakistan, which it ain't. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Fylindfotberserk, you're absolutely right, "Aspect of Pakistani history" does make it sound rather contemporary, and besides, if it's an archeological culture, it's technically prehistory, so I vote to change it back to "Archaeological culture of modern-day Pakistan". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to :Magdalena Bałazińska. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:@David Eppstein, what's controversial about adding her nationality? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Because you have no reference stating that to be her nationality. She has a plausible claim for at least four nationalities and you're picking one as primary without evidence that it actually is primary, with significant evidence that it is not (it is not a country in which she has done anything relevant to her notability), and without basing your choice on published references. WP:BLP requires published references for all claims and it is not optional. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku,

When filling out a tag for a Proposed deletion, please use full sentences and provide a deletion rationale that refers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not clear exactly what you mean here and the reason for deleting an article has to be evident to the administrator who is reviewing the article next week and considering whether or not it should be deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to ask why my changes to the article about Lunatc Soul were reverted? As reason you explained that "changes were overall not an improvement: non-neutral language, poor grammar".

I am not English native so I realize my grammar my not be perfect but were those sentnces really that poor?

Also what exactly was non-neutral about my content?

And finally if I add infomation about the style of the musical project with sources why is it not improvement?

I'd appreciare your asnwers on this.

Temuri1892 (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Temuri1892, thanks for bringing this up instead of reverting. Here are a couple of examples of why I thought your edits weren't an improvement:

• "Lunatic Soul – a solo studio music project created by Mariusz Duda, a Polish musician, vocalist, and multi-instrumentalist, leader of the progressive rock band Riverside. Founded in 2008, Lunatic Soul was meant to be a departure from the music of Duda's main band, but above all, a space for exploring different musical territories{{Cite web |date=2014-09-04 |title=the project |url=https://lunaticsoul.com/the-project/ |access-date=2025-04-11 |website=lunatic soul |language=en-US}}." This is a rewrite of the previous lead paragraph, but is it any better? Does it provide any additional, useful information, or present the content in an improved way? I think the answer to all of those is no.
• "sounds on the borderline of illustrative, oriental, and folk music, as well as electronic and ambient" this sentence is practically meaningless to the reader; what does "borderline of illustrative" mean? I certainly don't know. That's what I mean by "non-neutral language". It's subjective, biased, and offers nothing of value to the reader.
• I didn't go through the rest of your edits with a fine-toothed comb, as it seemed very similar to the preceding, at a glance. If there is content that you think is original to the article and can provide unique value to readers, please let me know, or add it to the page, but do remember that as a copy editor, I'll be making sure it all fits grammatically and contextually. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Hi @Revirvlkodlaku. Thank you for your reply and explaination. As you can see by my stats I am quite new here so I am still learning Wikipedia, its requirements and style. I also have no problem to take in gudelines of the experienced editors. At the same time you reverted big chunk of my content, not only project description, but also content about albums so I wanted to know why and which parts were wrong. Anyhow, all clear now and for the future edits I will have in mind all your remarks and instructions. Cheers. Temuri1892 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Temuri1892, thanks for the great effort you've been putting into building up the Lunatic Soul page. As you know, I've been doing copy edits of your work, and I thought I'd share some feedback with you. Specifically, I'm hoping that you've gone back and reviewed each of my edits and noticed the kinds of changes I've made. These are usually small and include changing the {{Main articles template to simply {{Main, adding punctuation before a reference instead of after, adding translations of Polish reference titles, swapping short dashes (-) for n-dashes (–), converting dates to the dmy format, etc. These are basic markup and typological conventions used on WP, and I'm hoping you can start incorporating them into your work, thus saving me and other reviewers the effort. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, thank you for your message. I did notice you introduced some changes and they definitely improve the reading of the article although I must admint I didn't go through all of them in all the details so as you pointed out in your message, the effort you have done so far to my content can be a good "manual" how to write a proper article. Therefore, I will go through all of them once again and if needed incorporate that to the new content i added and also remember them for the future. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me, cheers! Temuri1892 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Deprod. See page history. Bearian (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku! I noticed your work on Lollapalooza and your focus on article cleanup—would you mind taking a look at my edit requests on C3 Presents? I’ve declared my COI on the talk page, and the requests are in the review queue, but I’d really value your take on whether they seem reasonable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C3_Presents

Thanks so much! SBCornelius (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @SBCornelius, I'll be happy to take a look at it asap, cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @SBCornelius, I didn't hear back from you, but here's my take on your edit requests: everything looks fine to me and ready for publication. Personally, I prefer not including unlinked items in a list, unless they are somehow critical to the topic, as the fact that they don't have their own page usually suggests lower notability. Apart from that, any necessary copy edits can be done post-publication, so I'd say you're good to proceed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, thanks so much for taking the time to review my requests! I wasn’t online over the weekend, so I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.

::I really appreciate your feedback. Since you feel the requests are ready for publication, would it help if I left a link to this exchange on the article talk page so the reviewing editor can see your input when it gets to the top of the queue?

::Thanks again for your help! SBCornelius (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @SBCornelius, no worries, and sure, feel free to link our chat on the article talk page. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! You recently updated the short description of the Centralia mine fire from "Long-burning coal-seam fire in Pennsylvania" to "Long-burning coal-seam fire in Pennsylvania, US." While I appreciate the specificity, my understanding is that there are no other Pennsylvanias in the world, so is the "US" necessary? Is this just standardizing, whether or not there's more than one?

Honestly just curious. :) Thanks much! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @NekoKatsun, thanks for the question. I add "US" to short descriptions for the sake of people who don't know where Pennsylvania (or another state/city) is located. I know most people know, but it's two characters, so it seems harmless :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your reply - makes perfect sense to me. Definitely better to err on the side of more information instead of not enough! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

why must a power trio be a "classic" one? bands that are present on the power trio article like morphine and ELP deviate from what a "classic" power trio is (bass drums and guitar to you.) why mustn't this heat be included aswell ESPECIALLY because their live setup was exactly like the "classic" power trio you mentioned. WWIIKKIIPPEEDDIIAANN (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @WWIIKKIIPPEEDDIIAANN, I'm happy to have a civil discussion with you about this or any other topic, but I need you to take it down a notch and try to be a little more courteous. Let me know if that works for you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::oh, my apologies. i wasn't trying to be inflammatory. just curious as to your rhetoric WWIIKKIIPPEEDDIIAANN (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@WWIIKKIIPPEEDDIIAANN, the term "power trio" has a very specific definition: electric guitar, bass, drums; all other trios are simply that—trios. I'm not sure of other deviations from this formula on the list, but if they exist, they should be discussed. I don't know about the live setups of This Heat (their page doesn't have a band members section, but the lede mentions multiple instruments), but again, if you are certain of your claim, please provide supporting references. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm going to need you to explain "Seems like conjecture rather than a direct reference." This implies my input on the page, which was directly mentioned in the article sourced, was an opinion or ill-informed conclusion. I can literally prove it, why do you keep removing it? ToranL7231 (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2025

:Hi @ToranL7231, as far as I can tell, I haven't reverted any of your edits on the :Hoteps page; are you litigating this on someone else's behalf?

:Let me also point out that "I'm going to need you to explain" is not the most humble or collegial way you could have worded your request.

:Ok, so I'm assuming you're referring to "In 1996, Chris Spencer in Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood portrayed a character named Preach who is a former gang member turned "politically conscious" activist, resembling a Nation of Islam member or what is now known as a hotep."? First of all, this is poorly written, but more importantly, "turned "politically conscious" activist, resembling a Nation of Islam member or what is now known as a hotep" is conjectural language that reads something like "the character reminds me of a Nation of Islam member" and "you can think of those guys as Hoteps". This all seems very subjective to me, and that's why I removed it. What exactly can you "literally prove"? Show me that the character was a Hoteps, based either on an official character description or the way he is referred to in the show, and then it's a different story, but in the meantime, all I'm seeing is OR. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)