User talk:Bondegezou

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

In the now-archived previous talk page, somebody wrote:

"journey to the center was the first from the classic lineup...."

But wasn't "Journey to the Center of the Mind" actually done by the Amboy Dukes? I guess it is possible that Yes did that song also, but there does not seem to be anything here on Wikipedia about it. Tesseract12 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Thank you for creating a page about my compatriot, a native of the village of Shmankivtsi Stepan Charnetsky. I will be grateful if you help with filling the page about my family village. Thank you!--Максим Огородник (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more information about Stepan Charnetsky. Take a look, please. Максим Огородник (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Belfast Telegraph source you have put quite clearly supports the idea that a non-Unionist or Nationalist party could hold the dFM position and clearly contradicts the statement that this role "can only go to a party designating as Unionist or Nationalist."; indeed it supports the truth that this is open to the largest party of the largest designation. See also:

"But if it finishes second, it can’t nominate a deputy First Minister if it sticks to its designation, as it is highly likely that either unionism or nationalism would be the largest designation, and the largest party from that section will therefore get the post."

This doesn't require "interpreting" primary legislation much less reading it. Suggest you change accordingly. Trivran (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-worded the text to better fit the Belfast Telegraph's explanation.

I suggest this isn't the sort of thing you should be coming here, to my Talk page, about. If there is an issue about an article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. That way, other editors can see the discussion and input. If you have further comments, go there. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source was published prior to the announcement from the Returning Officer whose decision it is to determine the day of the poll, so was wondering how that would be a reliable source? My understand is primary sources are allowed and this would be a valid time for a primary source, what do you think? Robidy (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The decision may be known about before the paperwork is published. But if you think there’s a problem with the secondary source given, then, sure, change it.

It would make more sense to have this discussion on the article Talk page so other editors can contribute. Bondegezou (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White, a drummer for Yes, passed away on May 26. Tesseract12 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring, AGF violations, apparent tag-teaming by Alexbrn. Thank you. I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were one of the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion which came up there. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've not gotten to looking over them (your changes) in detail (yet), but tl;dr version : Effort to tidy up is great, feels to me like its a bit of a shame to be throwing out content though.

So I've been (perhaps a little obsessively :P) involved with that article lately, and I definitely welcome your go at an overhaul (if anything, because it makes it easier to tackle the next overhaul :P ). I guess I just wanted to point out quick that I think - to pick an example - some of the content from multi-country outbreak might be worth throwing into an "timeline of the Monkeypox" article, rather than just cutting out. Nothing I can't do myself of course, and if you feel differently that's fine as well of course!

Anyway, I guess instead of inspecting your changes with a magnifying glass, I should maybe rather be taking the opportunity to tackle the article more boldly myself :) (I think I've been burned so often in the past I kind of shy away from that - I guess that comes with gravitating towards editing controversial topics :P ).

Regards, and perhaps we'll see each other round, Sean Heron (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I felt some WP:BOLD changes were needed, but happy to do things differently. I've suggested at Talk:2022_monkeypox_outbreak#Timeline_article? that we could have a timeline article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak, so I wanted to invite you to the new monkeypox outbreak task force, which I started from the WikiProject of current events. The task force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating to the new outbreak. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the main editor who's arguing that the Conservative Party leadership is 'now' vacant. I believe it would be best if 'you' would open an RFC on the matter, with a list of pages that RFC would effect. Should the 1922 committee choose an interim leader & thus a new prime minister to serve, until the party eventually elects a 'new' leader, during the RFC? Then the RFC can be closed, as the disputed topic would become moot. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I will see what other editors think. I hope you will be able to participate in any subsequent discussion, perhaps by bringing relevant sources to support your position. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Conservative Party's official website, is a good source. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look and the website doesn't appear to have been updated since Johnson's resignation, but if there are specific pages you see, do please share them in the appropriate discussions. That would be helpful. Of course, WP:PRIMARY applies. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any comments that you would care to make about the horrible overturning of the Roe vs. Wade decision here in the U.S. by the Supreme Court? Tesseract12 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just wanted to let you know, if BoJo resigned as party leader on July 26? Then perhaps his bio (including infobox) page & the Conservative party page, should also be updated :) GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation has No. 10 saying on 26 July that he has resigned, but it is not clear to me on what precise date he resigned. Leaving the precise date aside, yes, of course the other articles should be updated. Bondegezou (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated them using "July 26, 2022", though that can be corrected by anyone. Now, to find out who's the "interim party leader". Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see what the UK Supreme Court's ruling will be on Scotland holding another independence referendum. Odds are, they'll rule in favour of the UK government. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, may we keep the three-related pages consistent, until a consensus is reached at Johnson's bio page. Maybe a RFC there, would be the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed reply, GoodDay. I suggest a poor decision at one article shouldn’t be spread to other articles in the interests of consistency. If I can gather the energy, I will try to help the editing community reach a consensus on the Boris Johnson article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. But as I recommend, concentrate on the BLP & the other two related pages, will follow that result. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is not relevant to the current UK political situation, I was surprised to find out today that Johnson was born an American citizen. Yes, I know that the family returned to Britain during his childhood. Well, Napoleon was ethnically Italian, Stalin was ethnically Georgian and Hitler was born an Austrian. (This does not imply a comparison of Johnson to any of the above.) Tesseract12 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jewish Indian theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jewish Indian theory, the erroneous idea that some lost tribes of Israel became ancestors to Native Americans, influenced the Book of Mormon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jewish Indian theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jewish Indian theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 13,978 views (582.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work! Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod and others. I was surprised there wasn’t an article on the topic and had a boring train journey to fill, so… Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what is meant by "hook". Clicking on the above link does not help. Can anybody please explain? Tesseract12 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line in a DYK beginning "Did you know..." is called the hook. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining it. Tesseract12 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok its pointless. Einahr (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT is pointless? Tesseract12 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamie Muhoberac is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Muhoberac until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

QuietHere (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your page on here about Wendy Savage. The pro-choice movement needs more doctors such as her. Tesseract12 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's been an IP based used trying to change info and I am not clear why. It does seem something already discussed.Rankersbo (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bondegezou, I have a question regarding Template:Infobox legislative election. Does it have a maximum limit? I tried to add Independents as party38= but it didn't show up in the Infobox of Next Indian general election. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SharadSHRD7. I'm not at all certain, but I think it tops out at 35 rows...? You could try asking at Template talk:Infobox legislative election. You might even be able to get it changed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quick response. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't be of more help! Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i've just requested an edit in the talk page of "Arains". Please edit it as required. Thanks MT111222 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just didn't have enough time this morning to add the album cover, which I always intended to do. I have now added the image. So I did revert your edit. However, if you still want to delete my edits, go ahead. No problem. SethWhales ^talk 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Terrorism in Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some of your comments on the dubious Endemic COVID-19 page, I am glad to see someone coming with interesting sources and clear information! :>

Groble (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a delivery driver is not the same thing as a night delivery driver. from source: "who is currently a night delivery-man for a bakery" -1 accuracy points there

you wrote: 'He said he would seek powers to reduce rents' yet I cannot find this quote anywhere? it's almost as if he never said it.

He did say: " we need is two things. [Firstly] the political will - it needs to be a really strong mandate [from London’s voters]... “The other side of it though is, ultimately, you need to get the banks on side"

none of that has to do with seeking powers, or lobbying

"provide solar panels and heat pumps to every home" this is misleading: "he would look to provide every home with a solar power connection and a small heat pump. “That’s something that I would want entirely paid for by the private sector,”" is what was said. you're version implies use of city hall funds

my edit was better, and more accurate - if you have in issue with tone or neutrality that's one thing, but ditching accuracy for the ego win of 'being right' doesn't seem very wiki-cool to me Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't WP:EDITWAR or you will be banned. Read WP:3RR for more information. Also, read WP:BRD and follow its advice. Discuss proposed edits to the article on its Talk page, not here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have now been blocked from editing 2024 London mayoral election. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - looks like your fiction is now set in stone. shame that you seem to have little respect for truth Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the content of the article. You were banned for your behaviour. If you want to be unbanned, you need to recognise that. If you want to improve the content of the article, discuss suggested changes on the Talk page. You still haven't done this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but you did the same thing as me.

it's egos and admins - what a joke

You gamed the system to push fiction on Wikipedia - super cool

On a long enough time scale - Every population gets the government it deserves Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Asingleshardofconsciousnes: Bondegezou didn't do the same thing as you. They reverted you twice (two other people also reverted you) and encouraged you to take the discussion to the talk page. I urge you to read the WP:BRD link Bondegezou sent above which explains why this is important. Instead you edit warred against several other editors without discussing the issue on the talk page. Bondegezou hasn't gamed the system, they followed our process – one which you ignored – and has shown you patience. If you feel your edits are valid, explain why on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 12:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the wrong talk page -

I made my reasons on the edit bit -

again - and maybe I'm an idiot here.

So I make edit - explain reasons behind it

he revert - no reason given

I re-edit - make reasons more indepth

he revert say take to talk page

I re-edit and explain in talk page (his not the article one - new user my bad)

I don't think the two are the same.

yet to hear any reason for the edit Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As multiple people have said, you need to go to Talk:2024 London mayoral election and make a case there. You still have not done that. Please listen to the advice you are being given.

Also, you will need to make a conflict of interest declaration if you have a conflict of interest, as your prior editing suggested. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are experiencing a situation where an editor can't accept that their opinion is not an objective assessment of the situation, but an opinion with which no one else agrees. Rankersbo (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding your revert of my edit at "Partygate", please note than in no instance did I change the displayed text of any quoted material, or indeed of any other material in the article. My edit involved replacing piped links with redirects where the existing text was a pre-existing redirect to the same target as the pipe, as described at MOS:NOPIPE, and reducing the degree of overlinking of named characters such as Carrie Johnson/Symonds (linked 13 separate times).

I'm happy to discuss further, but please read WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, and MOS:REPEATLINK.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought you had changed "BYOB" inappropriately and you had not. However, some of your Carrie Johnson->Carrie Symonds changes are unhelpful, I think, and obscure the narrative. IF you make a very large number of changes in one edit, it is difficult for other editors to respond. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about making a large number of changes in a single edit, but the alternative is to make a large number of (very similar) changes in a large number of edits, which (I'm told) has the potential to annoy page-watchers. Another alternative would be to make no changes at all, of course.

Regarding Carrie Johnson → Carrie Symonds, again, these changes affect only the format of the link, not the displayed text. "Carrie Symonds" ([[Carrie Symonds]]) and "Carrie Symonds" ([[Carrie Johnson|Carrie Symonds]]) both display the same text to the reader, and both link to the same target. The advice of WP:NOPIPE is to prefer the former to the latter. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]