User talk:InvadingInvader/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:InvadingInvader. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

(congrats! ur stalking me! lol)

July 2022

You made a mistake in deleting my addition on the GEDmatch page. They changed their Terms of Service on January 11, 2021. I can't find that version of the Terms online at the moment. Although they didn't explicitly say so, those Terms redefined "law enforcement kits" to exclude Doe cases, most of which are part of criminal cases. The DNA Doe Project explained the implications at the time. (https://www.facebook.com/DNADoeProject/posts/pfbid02Z1T3KjogYUC9HiXgc6UFNifedbuNznAVMAJXUUnb4m7ABnaPN14K3XdG5k6haoC8l) 75.111.89.109 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Is there a secondary source (like the NY Times or Fox News, or a scientific journal) that outlines these terms? I think your edits are in good faith, but we don't use primary sources here. We use secondary sources, and using social media posts would constitute as something called original research, which is a big no-no here. Thanks for reaching out, InvadingInvader (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you'd have to dig deeper by comparing their previous TOS (which included Does in the opt-out cases) and the January 2021 TOS (which removed Does from the opt-out category). GEDmatch took great pains to hide that change, and proving it would probably qualify as primary sources and original research. The best I can do is to cite a contemporary blog post (https://thednageek.com/trust/). MyFirstPunkSong (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Rules are rules, and I'm sorry that this can't be included. However, this constitutes as original research. A scholarly article (JSTOR), a news source (NY Times or Fox News), books, magazines, blogs from law firms, or another reputable source has to list it. If you can't find a reliable secondary source, then it doesn't belong. Consider checking out or writing for WikiNews instead; they would like this stuff and accept primary sources. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources this should help as well InvadingInvader (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The DNA Geek (author of the blog linked above) is a PhD scientist and one of the leading researchers in the field of genetic genealogy. Is that not a reliable source? MyFirstPunkSong (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be included if it's phrased as "The DNA Geek raised concerns about this". Remember to keep the content neutrally-phrased. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:InvadingInvader

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:InvadingInvader requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ruy (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I have set my userpage to more heavily promote the usage of my talk page. I believe my normal userpage was too cluttered so I moved Wiki activities and COIs to a new “about” page. --InvadingInvader (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Just wanted to say hello to another Wikipedian and thank you for reporting an IP vandal :). I didn't know this was an option on here and am just learning about it! I hope the administrators are quick to take action. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup! If it’s a consistently-abused IP, rarely do admins block IPs permanently. Most of the time they’re blocked for 31 hours or something. Appreciate the kind words! InvadingInvader (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Ok first of all, Wikipedia is made for constant changes; no rules have been set in stone and every format here is made to be in continuous evolution. Not only does the redundancy in the old format produce confusion once there are more than 3 districts; more than seven representatives in a specific non-present era; multiple representatives changing districts, but it also negates the purpose of the articles made for the districts. I have defended the format we created as we believe that it is right based on what we saw at the articles: New York's congressional districts and Parliamentary constituencies in London. Noobguy33 ^(user talk) 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"Forgive my laughter" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Forgive my laughter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#Forgive my laughter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Too bee too tee dot org" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Too bee too tee dot org and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#Too bee too tee dot org until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Chandelas

Hello respected sir

I want to say that I have given a reference to what I have written on the page, which is historically true and Asia has accepted it. But they are forcibly telling him the origin of Gond Bhar. Can you please revert the page to my last edit(orgin and history) and lock him cause I mention all sources on historical base Suryansh Rathore (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page. I checked your sources, and they seem to be okay on the outside, but I don't know enough about Indian history, and it would be useful to have a third expert come on. Plus, reverting yourself could possibly put you in violation of Wikipedia's Three revert rule. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello

You did not answer my question. — Askhadulin (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for such; I've been caught up with a few things recently. I found what you asked for. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the disturbance. Here's my response. — Askhadulin (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Pororo + a hoax editor

Late reply, but some hoax editor keeps trying to Americanize the show's country of origin. Like, it always was a South Korean show, and I'm not sure if PBS could even license such a long-running South Korean series. Just thought I'd tell you this. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I have reverted the page, it never was a Cookie Jar production. It seems they've IP hopped and haven't changed. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to give him a chance by asking him (or whatever their pronouns are...I'll assume male for now) to provide a reliable source. Looks like he wouldn't. I had a debate about this once with an admin; we ended up concluding that repeatedly adding unsourced information constitutes as vandalism, and you're more than welcome to go beyond three reverts to get rid of it.

Hopefully after enough reverts he'll shut up about it. If I were you, I'd keep an eye on him and don't be afraid to hit that revert or undo button. It would be useful, however, to read exactly what he is adding as you could mistakenly revert bad stuff (I've done this a few times myself), but so far it does seem like you are in the right. Put more sinisterly, "keep up the barrage". ;) InvadingInvader (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Edits regarding federal judges

Hello, I wanted to clarify my removal of the names of judges on 2022 in the United States. If a federal judge is mentioned in an accompanied source, would that make it unnecessary to put them into that specific article with the given event? My rationale is that it can simply be "a federal judge" or something along those lines. I don't know, I just thought it was unnecessary to include and that's why I kept removing them (I usually either clean up the article or add stuff myself). It's no big deal; I just had some thoughts. Losipov (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, and thanks for reaching out! We need more people who actually talk when there’s a dispute instead of just keep edit warring. I think that since we have articles on most of these federal judges, we should actually use the articles for them. I do, however, support keeping stuff concise, and that’s why when people added “Federal Judge Example Personton of the United States District Court of Absurdistan” I shortened it down to “federal judge example personton”. Additionally, by including federal judge names, we encourage traffic to and stimulate interest in these often forgotten but needed articles on Wikipedia. It’s about including as much detail as possible in a manner that is concise, easier to comprehend (though not exactly the simple English Wikipedia), and appropriate for this article. I personally think that this format should only be used for judges which have Wikipedia pages (or by using red links, judges that should have Wikipedia pages), and panels of judges or the Supreme Court should not have the names listed as they’re already known in the case of SCOTUS or it takes too much space to list all of these judges. Hope this helps! InvadingInvader (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four and comparisons to Minecraft

Hi, I would like to remind you that it is best to find a reliable source that backs up new claims of content. Your addition of "inciting comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four" to the article is fine as a comparison to how the Minecraft community would react to the incident about private server bans, but that specific comparison would need another reliable source to back up the specific mention about comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four. On Wikipedia, we strive to add reliable sources (see WP:RELIABLE for further information about reliable sources) for any addition of content that may need verification. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Noted. When I originally wrote the section, I primarily relied on the Vox article I cited when it came to RS. I'm actively searching sources again, and if the content is restored, it will be accompanied with additional RS's. Thanks for letting me know! InvadingInvader (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Vice.com is a reliable source when it comes to the specific reference to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I had split the references that specifically mentioned comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four with the ones that just generalize that particular Minecraft controversy. I see the claim of Nineteen Eighty-Four comparisons as a completely different claim to that particular Minecraft controversy, and there happens to be two references that match this claim while also supporting the first claim. Which is pretty neat I gotta say. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oracle

Hello, would you consider moving/merging your recent edit into the existing § Class action tracking lawsuit? Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I think we should keep a brief mention in history, but otherwise, I'll do it. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ptrnext (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kolev v. Porsche Cars North America

Hello, InvadingInvader. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kolev v. Porsche Cars North America, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Concerning User Information

Hello! Earlier today, you asked to know if I am Mynameisspam1; I responded by saying yes and I stated my reason for being offline. I have received no response from you whatsoever and I am trying to nicely and politely ask for feedback on your part. Could you please respond to me? 68.100.154.123 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Friendly note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. North America^1000 09:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, you will find that that page has been deleted under the WP:CSD#G10 criterion. That's technically incorrect. It was deleted because it was terrifically bad idea, verging on WP:NOTHERE behaviour. You indicated that is was intended to be humorous. (I'm someone who could not be described as lacking a sense of humour - please see the "Did You No, seriously, I'm not making this stuff up" section on my userpage.) So, imagine that you actually dropped the "kiddo" message on someone's usertalk. They would be be quite right to be terrified - here was that august institution Wikipedia adding the "Navy Seal Copypasta" and its threats. And they would be quite justified in asking that the user who added that message to be blocked. Please think first about the consequences before creating content like that again. Peter in Australia aka --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna contest this. I've never used this beyond a small joke to Hey man I'm Josh (he accepted the joke), but you do bring up that people might misuse this. I have no wish to not build an encyclopedia, but if this enables someone else to be WP:NOTHERE, it's for the better it's gone. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Tati McQuay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tati McQuay, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tati McQuay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Big Oil Graphic

Overall, I really do like your graphic better, but I just have concerns about keeping it updated. A couple of thoughts...

• Exxon Mobil profit has a double dollar sign
• Eni should be included, there's consensus that it is a supermajor
• Including Phillips and Valero is complicated. Phillips 66 (the logo you included) runs downstream operations, while ConocoPhillips runs upstream.

RickyCourtney (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for reaching out! In case you haven't seen...I'm thinking best of both worlds here: export that data and the brands over to the table. I'd be happy to add ConocoPhillips on, and I understand that it would be best if both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are on; since Phillips 66 owns retail Conoco, that could confuse audiences. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The bots are just going crazy over the logos...I'm gonna add a graphic without revenues but demonstrates ownership of the Big Oil companies instead. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022 2

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of the non-free content policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

InvadingInvader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe my block was over the template Template:Big Oil. I grew increasingly annoyed with JJMC89's bots removing oil company logos, which may violations of the NFCC. To the best of my knowledge, including oil company logos in here shouldn't be a violation of US Copyright Law and be allowed under fair use, but if Wikipedia administration believes that they shouldn't be and believes that they would not meet the NFCC criteria, then I'll hold off. The bot didn't get the message across as well (something I wish to change about myself), and I think I would have been a bit more attentive to the situation if I had a formal warning first (this is the first time I've been in violation of this policy), but rest assured, if I do become unblocked, I won't be reverting the template Big Oil to state with logos without clear consensus/approval (or really any other template/file with logos). It's my utmost concern that everything I do on Wikipedia benefits the project and is in line with what standards are; I missed the mark here, and I'll ensure I don't miss my mark again.
My primary goal on Wikipedia is to make it better, whether that be through writing articles, cleaning up existing ones, elaborating on topics that would be noteworthy or informative, or throwing the occasional joke on talk pages. I learn as I go; sometimes I trip, but when I get back up again, I know where the rocks and roots are. The site has become a bit of a passion project; not only does it increase my own knowledge through reading and editing by adding content supported by reliable sources, but sharing such information makes it so The Free Encyclopedia can be not only free but the best.

Accept reason:

Unblocking with warning, and on understanding that you will not again edit-war with any bot. For the avoidance of any ambiguity in the future, this means never reverting a bot twice, although even reverting a bot once is something you should only do if you are absolutely 100% sure you know what you're doing. -- Tamzin^[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, InvadingInvader. I think you're on the right track with this unblock request, but I'm not quite convinced you understand why you were blocked. Before I'd be willing to unblock you, I'd ask that you read WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, and WP:RFUI, and then explain in your own words why it is not permissible to add non-free images to a template. I'd also want your agreement that you will not edit-war with JJMC89 bot in the future... or really any bot; if you're edit-warring with a bot, either you're doing something wrong, or it is (in which case you need to notify an administrator immediately so they can disable the bot). -- Tamzin^[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds good.

  The NFCC criteria contains 10 conditions which all must be fulfilled. Fair use isn't a "get out of jail free" ticket either; since Wikimedia servers are privately owned, the Foundation controls what's allowed and not allowed.

  Logos in Templates would not fulfill the "Minimal Extent of Use" and "Restrictions on Location" parts of templates, and would be subject to debate with regard to the "Contextual Significance" section. When in doubt, ask or just don't include.

  Yes, I agree that I will not edit-war with any bot.

  InvadingInvader (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, I think that's a pretty good answer. Thank you for taking the time to familiarize yourself with these policies. JJMC89, do you object to an unblock based on the above? -- Tamzin^[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin Unblocking is good with me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Nick Dardanes

You Should add Nick Dardanes 74.120.205.234 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! can I ask where you want me to add nick?InvadingInvader (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC) InvadingInvader (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of WBCHS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WBCHS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBCHS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

BP

Thanks for contributing to the article BP. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. See the Fortune Global 500 for information on BP's rankings as the fourth largest and sort it by the energy sector; be sure to exclude the state owned oil enterprises like Saudi Armco and Sinopec. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

de Montgomerie family page

Hi, I was actually adding content bit by bit as the overall page was mostly empty. I've started yesterday with a different account. I will start to add the references to the overall page today, but you are right I should have added them in the first place. 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:5A1:CB9E:3131:2159 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Heya! Thanks for reaching out; just make sure to add them, or if you need more time, use the edit summary to say you're working on adding references. Happy editing! :) InvadingInvader (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yea okay good idea. Happy editing to you too ;) 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:5A1:CB9E:3131:2159 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Page update

Hello! I noticed someone changed Davido's profile on Wikipedia but luckily you updated it. Keep it up.. Emydollars 01 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Just to keep you in the loop, the vandal has since been blocked for 31 hours. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What?

Trout slapping richly deserved by you for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:61D4:D96B:D402:979F#September_2022 2603:7000:2143:8500:61D4:D96B:D402:979F (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Dude, if I make a mistake, please explain in detail why, and be civil about it. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Attribution at History of ExxonMobil

Hi InvadingInvader. I provided retroactive attribution in the edit summary of this diff for the content you moved from Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil. For future page splits or copying within Wikipedia, just be sure to note it in the edit summary (with a wikilink to the original page(s)). This is needed to satisfy attribution requirements as described at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to do such. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)