Felida97

@Felida97 I noticed that you reverted my recent edits, can you explain the reason? I added a link to the "External links" section at the end of the article. That is the new ‎Engineering Heritage website having the most up-to-date information on heritage markers as I mentioned to you before. Regarding the wikilink to the program, it's a duplication of Engineers Australia wikilink and does not add value. Kazemi.F (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kazemi.F: Hi, thank you for your message (and sorry the late reply; btw, I wasn't notified about and thus had not seen the one you left on your talk page two months ago; I've read it now, thank you for the explanation/context)! Regarding the one edit you're referring to here (where you removed the last wikilink from the following sentence: The '''Australian Engineering Heritage Register''' is a [[heritage register]] maintained by [[Engineers Australia]] as part of its [[Engineers Australia#Engineering Heritage Recognition Program|Engineering Heritage Recognition Program]] ...): I reverted you with the edit summary "Unexplained removal of working wikilink to section about the program; I don't see why this wl should be removed" which is about as much of a reason I can give you. To elaborate my thought process and respond to your reasoning above, I would say that while the linked article is the same, the linked terms are different ("Engineers Australia" and "Engineering Heritage Recognition Program"), and the removed link links to a specific subsection that directly corresponds to the linked term. So, a person clicking on the first link would expect (and get) more information on Engineers Australia in general, and a person clicking on the removed link would expect (and get) more information on the program specifically. Without the removed link, people that want more information on the program specifically would perhaps believe that there is no further information on Wikipedia on that and only see that there is if they happen to click on the first link (and it isn't apparent from the linked term "Engineers Australia" that there would be), which is why I believe this does add value. (If it was simply a link to Engineers Australia and not the specific subsection, I would totally agree, but then it would also be kind of misleading to link it anyway. Another way to evaluate this situation is to imagine that Engineering Heritage Recognition Program would redirect to this subsection, and we wouldn't remove that link just because it redirects to (a subsection of) the same article as the link Engineers Australia.) So, that was my reasoning, but if you feel strongly that it doesn't add any value, feel free to remove it again and I won't contest the change :)

The external link addition I was on the fence about because of its wiki character (see WP:OPENWIKI and WP:SPS as to why), but after a closer look, it seems fine as an external link (NB: regarding its use as a reference, I'm not sure but leaning towards no at the moment), and it has been added again since my revert of your edit, so it's currently listed. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reflecting on my edits and I have now realised, thanks to you that my edits were not good enough for Wikipedia and I want to make amends. I am proposing a Amend plan. For every edit l did wrong, I do another good edit to compensate for that wrongful edit. I propose you and me work together so I can make amends. For example, you can recommend me an article to check over and I can check over it to the best of my ability and if there, for example, a minor spelling error, I could fix it, bringing me one step closer to make amends on Wikipedia, Thanks for reading this. Supelrand (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Supelrand: Mmh, not sure, but you could just take any random page (same link is also available on the sidebar as "Random article"). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you're fine, I'm the person who did a unsourced claim, I apologize. Sorry. This chat is by 2012An(4thwm1) (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please do not be sexist by claiming that a claim that is objective, well-known, and supported by the the premise of the model is not neutral. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please provide an alternative wording you would "like" that provides a clear and immediate message that the model is harmful. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply