User talk:NPguy: Difference between revisions

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]

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 10.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]