User talk:Grachester

Welcome!

Hello, Grachester, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm NP83. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, War of the Worlds (2005 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NP83 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NP83: please remove this warning. I changed the genre of the article from "horror" back to "action" which it has always been and which the cited source [1] verifies. I was reverting vandalism, not creating it. Please take more care to properly evaluate a sequence of edits before accusing long-standing editors of vandalism instead of the anonymous IP who *actually* vandalized the article. Thanks, Grachester (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. NP83 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

@Mishae First off, I question the choice to print such an article. What is the point? If this is done, it should be done for EVERY SINGLE RELIGION! Also, it would require much more evidence than these surveys, with obviously limited responses available to the participants. It does not begin to do justice to the details involved in personal decisions with a much wider array of experiences and explanations. (Just to note: My long and varied interaction with hundreds of ex-Mormons convinces me that most simply do not like all the requirements and haven't even bothered to look in depth spiritually or examine evidence. I do realize now that this experience does not meet Wikipedia requirements.) I will try to find a wider and more thorough range of surveys and other evidence to offer. Thank you for your patience with me. 2601:681:5A00:EF30:D190:8E22:3EDC:F7F8 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to question the existence of the article. The right place to do that is on the article's talk page. Grachester (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Age of criminal responsibility in Serbia

Could the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Serbia will be changed to below 13 years?

• A: No
• B: Yes

SCR 1845-6357 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. The article says that the Serbian President has proposed reducing it to 12. That is what the source says. Whether it is possible or not has no bearing on whether the President has made that proposal. Grachester (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm very like 12-year-old girls, so, the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Serbia can be lowered from 14 years to 13 years, but not be lowered to 12 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCR 1845-6357 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

With regards to your blanking of Ironwill360s' userpage: I agree with your intent, but if they add it back, you should add {{db-multi|G11|U5}} at the top of the page so an admin can delete it. {{db}} is for speedy deletion; G11 is for unambigious advertising and U5 is for blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations when people don't have many mainspace edits. I dream of horses ^(Contribs) (Talk) 16:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the advice. Best, Grachester (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Grachester. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2023-07-13. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PayPal revert

Hey there Grachester. In review of these 2 links (COO and PayPal.Me), I felt that there was a lot of company language in the articles. The author is a long-time member of TechCrunch's staff, so there's minimal concerns there, although I've been attempting to find alternative sources just to be safe. Rather than remove the information, I'd like to seek some better sourcing even though the TechCrunch articles are non-controversial. Is that something that makes sense to you? 30Four (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @30Four:. Thanks for the message. I agree that getting better sources would be ideal. I'll take a look and see what I can find. So yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the message. Best, Grachester (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Otis Khan

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Otis Khan, 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) 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Hi Grachester,

Sorry, if my participation did not seem neutral to you, but I find it hard to believe for a moment that you had time to check all the official references that I indicated.

Indeed, it did not take place 3 minutes between the publication and the reception of your message.

But suppose you postponed checking my references, regarding my way of writing, please take into account that not everyone knows your experience on Wikipedia as to how to write an article or to participate to one of them.

I invite you to reformulate my text so that it suits you, since the important thing is not my style, but the references that I have indicated.

It seems to me that it is the least you can do, unless you think you are the boss of Wikipedia, in which case I am sorry to have wasted my time but count on me not to recommend Wikipedia to the students of whom I take care of me.

The Wikipedia history option will show them that one is not free to participate in this online pseudo free encyclopedia.

You didn't even give me time to fill in a few details in my account, but what's the point now ?!

I'm sorry, but you took away all my desire to greet you. EgyptianAstro (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for British

Question for you. Why is the source you presented describing Ray Stevenson as British more reliable than this, this or this. That's called cherry picking. Stevenbfg (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello, Grachester, I have edited Sophia Lillis and Judah Lewis' profile on Wikipedia, respectfully. First off, Sophia was born in Crown Heights in Brooklyn. And Judah was born in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and his birthday is May 22nd, 2001, which he's 22 now. The stats are right. This is my message to you. Bugsy27 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugsy27: I have replied on your talk page. Grachester (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it's a G10

Kfcmucher9669 may have submitted their sandbox to the AfC wizard in error, and more latitude is permitted in user sandboxes than in article space; it doesn't look like an attack page to me. All the best, Miniapolis 02:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: Spicy deleted the page already as vandalism. If you think that biting the newbies, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally don't extend WP:AGF to vandals and I'm sorry that you do. Grachester (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTV, which specifically cites sandbox edits; the disruptive editing (not necessarily vandalism, IMO) was in submitting the page to AfC with the wizard. Test pages are tagged with WP:G2, and I don't assume that editing mistakes by new users (especially in userspace) are vandalism. Miniapolis 13:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

content removal for article on sealings

hi there,

it was not a mistake. the section I attempted to remove contains a photo that was taken surreptitiously and without permission and consent of the person in it, since photography is prohibited in operating temples of the LDS Church. It also contains text from the sealing ceremony which is not meant to be shared with the general public. 69.172.175.81 (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LDS has no authority over what is included in Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is not censored. That section is properly sourced to publicly available books and the LDS's own website. Removing it is not acceptable. If you wish to challenge this, please do so on the article's talk page. Grachester (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback at Search Engine

Did I do something wrong? LR0725 [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I hit the rollback link by mistake. I've already self-reverted. Sorry for the unnecessary alarm! Grachester (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I thought like "Is there WP:MOS I don't know?". Thanks for your patrolling! LR0725 [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you please mention that the edit I made on page "HIGHEST GROSSING MALAYALAM MOVIES" appeared to be disruptive? I based my edits on tracking figures and reliable sources, such as Times of India, which I have already mentioned in the article's talk page. It would have been helpful if you had checked them properly before posting unnecessary comments on my talk page. Tusk001 (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tusk001: this is your edit that I reverted. You changed the total gross for Lucifer from 175 crore to 130 crore. The source for the gross for Lucifer is this Hindustan Times article which clearly states 175 crore. Changing the gross amount to contradict the source is a clearly unconstructive edit, so I stand by the warning I gave you. We use information from the cited sources only. Changing the gross to another value is not acceptable. Please do not do it again. Grachester (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that reputable sources often publish collection figures that they obtain from social media articles.

However, if you are still suggesting that I should solely rely on those articles to update the collection of movies and claim with conviction that I was wrong and the correct theater collection of "Lucifer" is what was published in the article,

then you should also consider adding "Mamangam" and "Madhuraraja" with a collection of 100 crore, even if those figures are merely promotional.

Various reputable sources such as Times of India, Indian Express, IBS Times, Asianet News, and many more have reported on the collection of those movies.

These sources are considered reputable, right?

So, why aren't you updating the information on those movies based on the articles, but only insisting on updating the collection of "Lucifer" based on the article?

is this a fanpage??

As a Wikipedia editor, I strive to maintain accuracy on the platform. Thus, updating collections solely based on social media articles would not be wise or prudent. Tusk001 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tusk001: the Hindustan Times is not a "social media source". It is clearly a reliable source. None of you attempts at justification address the core issue. You changed the gross of Lucifer from that obtained from the cited source to a figure with no source at all. That is completely unacceptable and clearly falls within the bounds of disruptive editing. If you wish to challenge a source, then include the better one. Do not just add the figure you would like. Articles can only be based on sources and if you can't provide a better source, don't change the article. Grachester (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't received an answer to my question. I never claimed that Hindustan Times is an unreliable source. My main concern is why you added the collection of 'Lucifer' as 175 crores based on the Hindustan Times article but have not included 'Mamangam' and 'Madhuraraja' with a reported collection of 100 crores. Reputable sources such as Times of India, Indian Express, IBS Times, Asianet News, and others have reported on the collection of these movies. These sources are considered reputable, correct? So, why haven't you updated the information for those movies based on the articles, instead of insisting only on updating the collection of 'Lucifer' based on that particular article? If I am unable to update the collection of 'Lucifer' to 130 crores, I can update 'Mamangam' to 100 crores since both sources are reliable, right ? Additionally, you mentioned an updated collection of 152 crores for 'Pulimurugan,' but I would like to know the source for that information. Tusk001 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was why did I revert your edit. I have answered that. I have no opinion about the grosses for these other movies. You are wrong to claim that I updated the gross for Lucifer. What I did was revert your unsourced and disruptive change. You can only update any box office value based on specific sources that are cited in the article. I haven't said the gross for Pulimurugan is 152 crore. That does appear to contradict the source given, so should be changed. Grachester (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who changed 146 to 152 and you are saying you haven't said ?? Tusk001 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulligram's gross has been listed as 152 crore since April 11 when you changed it from 127 crore to 152 crore in this edit. If you are referring to this edit of mine then that was reverting vandalism by User:Sudhechishan which restored the status quo of 152 crore. Grachester (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien

It is objectively not fake. Director Fede Álvarez posted the image himself. 20th Century Studios shared the same image on their objectively theirs Twitter account. Rusted AutoParts 20:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those pieces of information were available to readers who sought to verify the claim. My argument wasn't about whether it was true, but whether it was verifiable by a reader. Using reliable sources is important and a core Wikipedia requirement. A random image posted on a fan forum cannot be considered a reliable source. Grachester (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a source with the name now. Apologies for frustrations generated. Rusted AutoParts 20:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Thank you, it looks good now. Grachester (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phreak pornposting

I have a valid source stating that Phreak accidently shared Leauge of Legends porn during his livestream. Why did you remove it nerd? 68.101.79.170 (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]