User talk:NPguy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Hello NPguy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

RNM edit

[edit]

Imagine a day when I don’t have to wonder what a beautiful world is and we can all share our truths? ❤️ KnowStringsAttached (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFNEC edit reverted

[edit]

Hi. I did not understand why you reverted my edit updating the composition of IFNEC. The title of the article is IFNEC (not GNEP) and the paragraph in discussion reads: "In 2010, the GNEP was renamed the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. IFNEC is now an international partnership ..." The key word here is "now". This paragraph is an IFNEC paragraph and GNEP is simply in the past.

Could you please reread the entire paragraph with my edit and explain what you find incorrect? Were the article named GNEP, your edit summary would make more sense to me, but as it currently stands IFNEC is not being correctly described in wikipedia. Erkcan (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Erkcan (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"Turkey" vs. "Türkiye"

[edit]

in spite of the Erdoğan government's proclamation and the United Nations' adoption of their preferred name, the English-language WP:COMMONNAME of this country remains "Turkey", and it is Wikipedia policy to use that name.

Please note that this is not because of anti-Turkish bias or a desire not to keep up with the times; it's that English Wikipedia follows English language usage, not prescriptions by any one group, no matter how official. Please be assured that if mainstream English language use changes (as it did, for example, with "Bombay" changing to Mumbai and "Peking" changing to Beijing), English Wikipedia policy will follow that change, for exactly the same reason that it resists the change now. The WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) pages have more information on this.

If you would like to dispute this, please take this up at Talk:Turkey, where the issue has been discussed repeatedly and at great length. Please don't make any similar changes to other articles unless this is first endorsed by community consensus. — The Anome (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN at IAEA

[edit]

I would like to begin WP:DR due to our recent disagreement at IAEA. I believe you have done edit war like behavior, and made statements that are similar to behaving like an owner of the article. In particular your summary, to me, falls under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR statement 9. Further you asking me to stop editing the article brings me here. I hope we can edit agreeably in the future. Czarking0 (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czarking0 I agree dispute resolution is in order, though I believe you are the one who are being argumentative and inflexible. I have repeatedly requested discussion and you have rebuffed and insisted on edits even after I have pointed out they are factually incorrect and unjustified by WP policy. And I intend to correct the article by restoring it to the previous consensus version. NPguy (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you agree, though I reject that "they are factually incorrect and unjustified by WP policy". Do you consider DR resolved? Czarking0 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do if you do. NPguy (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not going to revert, but I will manually correct factual errors. NPguy (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I'm done, check to see whether there is still a need for dispute resolution. At some point in the history I seem to have used the wrong version as the baseline. NPguy (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say things like "There is no reason to doubt these statements." you are overstepping your bounds. Instead ask what is your reason for doubting this? that communicates you are willing to listen to my ideas instead of dictate to me what I should think.Czarking0 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm OK starting from this version. We can go paragraph-by-paragraph through Czarking0's proposed edits. I typically login to WP every day or two, so this might be take some time" - NPguy on IAEA talk page. This is the most egregious example of OWN I have been personally subjected to. This is Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval (from WP:OWN) simply rephrased. I ask that you revoke this comment implying that you have some ownership right to approve my edits.Czarking0 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not asserting ownership. I'm agreeing to a process of dispute resolution. Since I'm a party to the dispute, my participation is essential and my availability is relevant. NPguy (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

""Safeguards" is the name for the IAEA's verification function. It has nothing to do with safety. Please stop reverting and discuss on talk page if you don't understand" - NPguy. This is rude stop implying that you have some great understanding of this that I do not. I simply do not want to parent primary source content that goes through a bunch of PR teams. That does not constitute a lack of understanding on my part.Czarking0 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment after you had repeatedly reverted my corrections. It was in response to your rude behavior. Your edits demonstrated that you did not understand the content you were editing. NPguy (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Erroneous edits to IAEA missions" - This is not a good way to start a conversation. It begins on I am right you are wrong. You do not get to decide what is an error. Instead begin conversations with why you think one set of content is better not just calling what I say Erroneous.Czarking0 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made were factually incorrect, and that's why I corrected them. I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings, but gentler approaches did not seem to get through. NPguy (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In multiple instances you have heavily implied that you do not assume I am operating in good faith. I will point some out here, and highlight that myself and other have now warned you that you are claiming (or at least heavily implying) I operate in bad faith when unwarranted.

  1. You have called my edits "tendentious"
  2. "inconsistent with genuinely trying to resolve a dispute"
  3. "disruptive"
  4. "vandalism"
  5. You said "Overall, your edits seem intended to prolong and escalate the dispute rather than resolve it or improve the article"
  6. "gratuitous and argumentative"
  7. "reflects bad faith"

In all this I will admit I said "You too" which was not polite. You have my sincere apology for that and I should have kept my cool. I think by responding in that way I hurt the ability of the article talk page to stay focused on content and continue the editing discussion. I will do better in the future. On the other hand, I want to emphasize that I believe you are operating in good faith and I do not believe I have said anything other than the one "you too" that would lead you or anyone else to believe otherwise. I, of course, welcome correction on that point.Czarking0 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comments reflect my perception of your editing behavior as stubborn, inflexible, and unwilling to engage in genuine give-and-take. When there is a dispute, it seems like basic human decency -- not to mention standard Wikipedia protocol -- to discuss the matter rather than insisting on your position. I always try to start by assuming good faith and offering explanations. I saw none of that from you. NPguy (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: I believe this most recent comment is doubling down on unwarranted accusations of bad faith. Czarking0 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing unwarranted personalization from both of you, and I'd love for it to stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well for that I apologize. I do not want to make personal remarks. I addressed the "you too" comment above. Are there other comments of mine you think constitute "unwarranted personalization"? I welcome the opportunity to reflect on these and make an additional apology if needed. Czarking0 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start this. I found the posting on my user talk page accusing me of misconduct to be annoying, aggressive, and hostile, as well as incorrect. Since it is my personal talk page, I responded with my personal perceptions. I am happy for it to end, as I prefer to engage in more dispassionate discourse on the relevant article talk pages. NPguy (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey is this in response to what I said or what Firefangledfeathers said? It seems like that latter, but wanted to be sure Czarking0 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding mainly to Firefangledfeathers. NPguy (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make comments that further my desire for dispute resolution. On the IAEA talk page you just stated "Have you read the definition of a primary source?" In the above commenting I am quoting from the wikipedia definition of a primary source and in my most recent comment I am rephrasing the definition to show why I believe that IAEA publications are primary sources on the history of the IAEA. I don't understand why you are asking me if I have read the definition of a primary source? Can you please retract this statement or explain to me why this is a fair question to respond with when I am quoting from the definition? Czarking0 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was inconsistent with the definition of a primary source. The IAEA history meets the definition of a secondary source. Beyond that, I find your behavior strange and inexplicable. You seem to have developed an obsession with questioning this article and disagreeing with me. I have never seen such nit-picking with any other Wikipedia article, and this is one of the better articles I follow. NPguy (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not my argument is consistent, do you agree that I clearly read the definition of primary source and that you then stated "Have you read the definition of a primary source?". If so I ask that you retract this. If this is one of the better articles you follow then you may benefit from following better articles. Wikipedia has WP:GA and WP:FA articles which do a great job of relying on secondary independent sources. One that may interest you is Chicago Pile-1. Czarking0 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the question because your description of a primary source was inconsistent with WP definition. I see no reason to retract the comment. It was not meant to offend but to express exasperation.
How was my description inconsistent? I quoted the WP definition and then rephrased it.Czarking0 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to rehash, but at some point you labeled the IAEA history a primary source. I followed the link and saw that the history met the definition of a secondary source. NPguy (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would very reasonable for you to elucidate how me quoting the definition and then adding IAEA into it was inconsistent with the definition Czarking0 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
let it rest.NPguy (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion here around September 17-18. NPguy (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I think you are being unreasonable and argumentative" - NPguy. I am managing just fine without calling you names and I ask that you do as wellCzarking0 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would really do me some good if you said something along the line of I think you are operating in good faith and I look forward to resolving our dispute amicably. I can certainly say that I look forward to improvements in the IAEA article. During the recent protection period, I enjoyed finding areas of agreement and I think we were able to improve the page marginally. I know you are operating in good faith and if there is anything you would like me to do to demonstrate my own good faith then I will certainly take it into consideration.Czarking0 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have taken offense at my direct style. I have never made comments I consider derogatory. When I used the terms "argumentative" and "unreasonable" they were prefaced by "I think" to convey that they were subjective impressions. I always start off assuming that other editors are acting in good faith, but your behavior did not give the impression that you were. When challenged, you seemed unwilling to reconsider and and often added further objections. I was hoping that conveying my subjective impression would encourage you to reflect on your own behavior and why it provoked my response. You seemed to treat them as personal insults. They were not. NPguy (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks that makes me feel better, I think this is a great place to build from. Czarking0 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on International Atomic Energy Agency

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page International Atomic Energy Agency, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Czarking0 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Czarking0 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]