User talk:Kvinnen

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

What are you doing? She was credited as Courteney Cox Arquette from season 6 up until the end of season 10 ~2025-32131-61 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this issue at WP:TEAHOUSE and get back to you. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#The_changing_names_of_actors

You can monitor this conversation if you please. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvinnen! The thread you created at the Teahouse, A Fly, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cambial Yellowing. I noticed that you recently made an edit in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This summary does not include your removal of reliably-sourced content, and misleadingly suggests it was merely a rewrite of text you found difficult to understand. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how merely improving readability is "misleading". There was no fact in there that I introduced nor removed. Just rewrote sloppy writing. You are free to retain it. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 11:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the edit summary, not the content of the edit, that is misleading. I think the misleading edit summary warning template above makes that clear – possibly that comprehension issue also led you to perceive the article text as sloppy? You removed “and ridiculed by the scientific community” which is well-sourced to academic histories of the topic. If you have issues with that content we can restore the long-time stable status quo “rejected as nonsense by the scientific community” and discuss on article talk. But don’t remove content and then claim you didn't. Thanks. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"ridicule" replaced with "broad rejection" is made for the reason of prescribing to an encylopedic tone, per WP:TONE, I would appreciate it if you showed me where "ridicule" by scientific community is specifically mentioned. I stand by my edit summary, and my edit significantly improved that sentence on the lead and did not take from the spirit of the information conveyed. If removal of "ridicule" was your issue, you could have retained the rest of my wording and added that one word "ridicule" back. Instead you performed a full-blown revert.

Therefore, you got a well deserved tier 1 WP:OWN warning on your talk page that you removed. My suggestion to you is to be more patient and less unhospitable to editors who disagree with you, especially when you have been blocked previously regarding the Scientology subject.

Good luck. Kvinnen (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you showed me where "ridicule" by scientific community is specifically mentioned. [sic]

It’s "specifically mentioned" in the places specified in the citations. That’s what the citation is for - if you’re having difficulty with reading citations please see the help pages. I’m afraid I don’t consider the rest of your comment to merit a response. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you would not consider the rest of the comment to merit a response and in the one area you could have helped, you responded with useless snark. Thanks for continuing to be helpful. Kvinnen (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: You seem very focused on edit summaries lately, whereas you very often don't write any with details except when making disparaging remarks in edit summaries about other editors or their edit choices. Such as this most recent one Special:diff/1324379753 where you make the disingenuous remark "Don’t add editorialising", which is wildly off the wall because your edit only moved a sentence and didn't change any content that could explain "Don't add editorialising". You had already made six edits since the last editor made any, and they'd made 10 in a row, so one can't even guess what you were referring to. This violated WP:CIVIL (rude tone), and WP:SUMMARY (not describing the edit), and WP:NOPA (a personal dig at another editor, presumably the one who had made several edits earlier). On top of that, you templated and scolded me TWICE in the last few days on the same issue (edit summaries), when all of us have been involved in the recent discussions together on Talk:Scientology. Nothing in Kvinnen's edit raised to the level of needing to go off article talk page discussions just to paste a standardized template on their user talk page.

WP:BATTLEGROUND comes to mind.

Kvinnen's edit summary ("Readability improved from sloppy sentences") was not misleading, and was at least as descriptive as the one you used when reverting them. Given how contentious discussions around Scientology have been, especially lately, it would be more constructive to try to cool things down rather than escalate them. In particular, pasting a template like "Misleading edit summary" — and then adding personalized criticism to it ("...you found difficult to understand...") — is not constructive. Please see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, which explains why templating in this way often inflames disputes instead of resolving them.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWEDEN YES ~2025-37431-22 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvinnen! The thread you created at the Teahouse, AfD closers, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvinnen! The thread you created at the Teahouse, The changing names of actors, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kvinnen. I was revising Nigerian bandit conflict when I noticed some conflicting edits between you and El marino loko that I didn't want to complexify by making any further good faith edits. Help me understand what they did to the page and what needs to be done now EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looks as though my edit has since been reverted. Please feel free to make edits there. Happy editing! Kvinnen (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]