User talk:Fabrickator

Hello there,

Sorry if I do not know id this is the appropriate place to respond to you. If it isn't-my apologies! I find Wikeepedia's rules too challenging/complex & time consuming for me to delve into; understand; learn; memorize [I am a 24/7 caregiver of my handicap wheelchaie bound partner which presents a real energy & time-consuming challenge for me to manage in a manner which would allow me the luxury of doing the aforesaid.

Regarding Wikepedia's availability in other languages. I appreciate learning from you the fact that this option exists for people who wish to access articles non-existant in a certain given language but are in another language. Yet, it does NOT contradict my point of the geographicl category some languages seem to be misplaced in. But, moe importantly: you seem to ignore or, overlook the other possible aspect of some people needing/wanting or wishing to read the article in a language OTHER than English [as, you are claiming that: most people access/read articles in English]. What about peole who do NOT speak English & need/require reading the article in their own [respective native] language? Isn't that also a determining factor [if NOT: shouldn't it also an important determining factor in offering Wikepedia in other languages...?

AK63 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@AK63: Just for context, I am an advocate of facilities within wp which help to make readers aware that a particular article exists in other languages than English, particularly when there is no English-language version of the article (as well as in the specific case when the other "language" is the "simple English" language at simple.wikipedia.org). To this end, I will often make edits which consist of adding interlanguage links.

You appear to be making a point that I have claimed that most people read articles in English, and if I have made such a point, then the context for my claim is that among people using English WP, one thing they would tend to have in common is a preference for reading English in comparison with any other language.

Now where it appears that you go awry in your logic is that "enwiki" editors ought to be concerned that some people will want to read a particular article in (for example) French. I am not sure whether you intend to suggest that enwiki editors ought to arrange for French language versions of some given article of interest to be translated to French, or alternatively, that enwiki editors ought to go on to frwiki and insert interlanguage links to enwiki articles that do not exist on frwiki.

Certainly, one can do this and thereby improve frwiki, but there are two errors on point: First, as primarily an enwiki user, I don't view a lot of frwiki articles, and hence, am quite a bit less likely to encounter this situation. Secondarily, every different language version of wikipedia has its own rules. German wikipedia seems to discourage editing by "casual" users. Also, the conventions for editing wiki differ across languages. While I do make the occasional edit on non-enwiki sites, it is time-consuming and more problematic, by comparison. In any case, be aware that editing Wiki is not a "business" ... one edits wiki presumably for the satisfaction of the possibility of improving the world, and I am likely to be more productive at doing that by editing in a language where I have the greater level of competence than spending my time editing in languages that I have less (typically, far less) competence in (but thank goodness for machine translation). Fabrickator (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fabrikator, so interested in your info. On Pester John, any chance you could add more references to this wp article, thank you so much 😊 ~2025-38199-15 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Fabrickator. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 17 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to contact you about your feb 24 edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three-strikes_law. You reverted my edit for link spam. I wanted to ask, what indicated this? I made the edit in good faith to inform readers about updated Calif. Law. No affiliation with legalclarity.

Sincerely, Ethan Ethan.764 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ethan.764: The domain "legalclarity.org" was associated with link spam. If you did not intend it as link spam, then you simply happened across a website that was in fact being used for link spam. Trust me, there are a variety of reliable sources discussing the changes in the updated California three strikes law. You shouldn't have a problem finding a reliable source to support the applicable claims. Fabrickator (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The "was"/"is" question in leads is becoming a problem that probably needs ventilating and addressing by a broader group of editors. Historically, most articles used "was." Many of the top articles still do, such as Marbury and Bush v. Gore. This is a sensible practice. Supreme Court decisions are events that occurred at a specific time in the past. Articles are about decisions as historical events, not about the continuing doctrines they represent. Linking the choice of tense to overruling status is asking for trouble. Most editors do not have a law degree. The precedential status of any given decision can change over time. It's often a complicated question and rarely involves a binary "good law"/"bad law" choice. More recent articles have started to use "is", as you say, and last week an editor went through and changed dozens en masse. A broader discussion, perhaps at the WikiProject, to seek some consensus would probably be a good idea.  White Whirlwind  17:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)