If you want to have a discussion about article content, please put your comment on that article's talk page, so that other editors are aware of the discussion. If I have not responded to a discussion, please ping me there or let me know here. Sometimes I am unexpectedly busy, and I may not have time to respond for several months.
Activist, yes. The lack of Black characters in Dilbert had always been a problem, and I had even tried to excuse some of his statements in the past, but his views and statements have been increasingly more repulsive the past several years. His recent comments are so overtly racist (not to mention nonsensical), and I am glad he is being held accountable. Any suggestions on a new username? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestions but I'm sure you'll get a good one.
I knew Scott Adams was a right winger in real life, but really liked the strip focused on the universal ironies of bureaucracies. I get a Sunday-only USA Today paper for state and local news but also for access to the chain's nationwide publications. I read just the Dilbert and Doonesbury strips. They've canceled so that means I'm down to one.
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.
Howdy Notwally,
Jonathystiensteinstone here and I wanted to discuss the editing of the Pepé Le Pew article along with allegations you've made about me having more than one account or am in coordination with others.
For starters, my account was newly created last night, and prior to that I had only made 2 edits to the article in question (without an account/anonymously). I decided to make an account so I could be more easily contacted to discuss editing and such!
Secondly, my apologies for the back and forth when it comes to editing that portion of the article, and my apologies if any of my comments came across as rude. That is definitely not my intention and I merely want to organize the article and keep it unbiased. Talk of the critism of the character is valid and definitely noteworthy, but I do find putting it in the Lead Section using the wording you used was a bit inaccurate and unnecessary. Hopefully we can come to an understanding/compromise on how to edit the article!
Again my apologies if any stress or upset was caused by this issue, hope you have a wonderful day! Jonathystiensteinstone (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathystiensteinstone, with all due respect, your edits do not seem intended to keep the article "organized" or "unbiased". You have ignored WP:LEAD as well as the views of multiple other editors. You have also repeatedly changed your reasons for your edits, including the false claim that you were concerned about length when in fact your latest edit added to the length of the paragraph in question, while replacing the sourced material from the body summarized in the lead with unsourced speculation and your own spin on it. Considering that your removal of this content has been reverted by at least 4 editors, you need to stop trying to edit war your personal views into the article and instead use the article's talk page to propose your changes and try to get consensus for what you think needs to be changed. – notwally (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AussieDamo, yes, you should probably cite that. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which means others can check to see if it is cited to reliable sources. If you check those blue links, you can learn a lot more about the Wikipedia policies. Also, if you provide me a link to the article in question, I can provide a more specific response. – notwally (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again.
Years later, you continue to make some changes despite not understanding previous edits or page content. This will be my first and last message about this specific issue so hopefully you will understand this one:
You changed it from "{{plainlist|" to "{{Plainlist|", this is pointless and does not cause any formatting errors, but sure.
While doing this change, you unnecessarily reverted "June 6, 2022" to "2022-06-10", this can cause errors because in some cases YEAR-MONTH-DAY does not work as intended, so the former is actually preferred since the end result is exactly the same.
You also removed this sourced info for some reason: "Some publications stated that Hereditary has gained a cult following since its release and considered it to be one of the best horror films of the 2010s." If you do not agree with the sources or the text, you should try to change them or discuss before removing them completely, without a valid reason (as this is not even a formatting/style issue).
Speaking of sock puppets I assume this user[2] is the the sock of the IP. The editor has attempted to make the same type of edits on that article in April. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nemov, I get the impression that the IP editor is a long-term editor who has made contentious POV edits in the past, given their knowledge of numerous policies. They may even have had an account in the past that was banned, considering how much they talk about their user talk page for a dynamic, frequently changing IP. However, based on their editing and commenting style, I do not get the impression that they are the same person as the other editor. The citations being the same appears more like lazy work by the logged-in account editor copying the IP editor's citations than probative evidence of sockpuppetry. This tracks with the substanceless sentence they added to the article [3]. I think you may want to withdraw your SPI until you have more evidence. – notwally (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right about the lazy editing but the edit summaries are very similar. Maybe there's an off wiki coordination going on that explains two users suddenly showing up. Nemov (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that the IP user had pinged the other editor. I missed that during all the wall of text responses being generated so quickly. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HKFP
I reverted this edit [4] because the sources seem to check out. The aim is to cover topics such as the ongoing battle for democracy...[5]He decided to launch a more serious site in December last year while covering Occupy demonstrations in the area.[6] Just letting you know that I'm open to discussion. CurryCity (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added is not what the sources actually say, though. Phrases such as "such as" and "as well as reporting on breaking news" cannot be ignored without distorting the meaning. As for the second source, you even say that it "suggests a connection without directly saying it", which would be WP:OR. Yes, the paper was founded after the 2014 protests, and in many ways in response to the increasing censorship that was seen in response to the protests. That is definitely important to its history. But that is not the same as being founded with one of its primary aims to cover the pro-democracy movement, which is how the language you restored to the lead portrays it. What I find in reviewing the sources are numerous references to its desire to be an independent alternative to the SCMP, with many sources now describing it as the last remaining independent alternative new outlet, e.g., [7]. I moved mention of the pro-democracy movement that you had restored to the lead into the body under "history" since it does seem relevant there. Here is my edit. If you would like to discuss this further, I would request that this discussion be copied over the to article's talk page to continue there in case other editors may be interested in it. – notwally (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it because the wording was close enough to the sources and had been there for years. Didn't know you feel so strongly about it. CurryCity (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone who has a COI is asking for other editors to review an issue in an article, then I think it is important that we take those requests seriously. I don't agree that the wording was close to the sources. – notwally (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retired
So, I noticed that you deleted the edit on Erin Torpey's page. I checked her IMDB page and there are no more acting credits after 2015. By that logic, if an actor's filmography ends at a certain year, doesn't that mean they are retired? 92.30.208.30 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I truly do appreciate your continued contributions to the article, and I have come around to agree with many of your edits (such as much of the language sounding promotional), I do think the pruning is a bit excessive and some edits are unnecessary. I've also noticed another user @KaiSulyma edited the article more in line with my original draft and you reverted their edit on account of being "not how the sources describe him." Respectfully, I think that this is largely not true and his edits were fairly minor and hardly excessive.
In an effort to avoid an edit war and receive more detailed constructive feedback, I've made a slightly revised draft in my sandbox. I've taken a "middle of the road" approach and I feel it is fairly conservative and avoids excessively promotional language while elaborating in line with the facts expressed by the cited secondary sources.
I will publish this by Thursday if I don't receive feedback from you, so if you are unavailable until then please don't take my edits as a way to personally "get back" at your reversions on the article; I simply believe that it could use some improvement and feels a little "half baked" in its current state.
Faketuxedo, could you please post the comments you left here to the article's talk page instead? I do not want to have discussions about article content on my talk page, where other editors may not be aware of the discussion. – notwally (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. I figured because it was primarily between me and you it belongs here but that makes sense. Adding it in just a moment. Faketuxedo (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, another editor made a revision that addressed most of what I mentioned in my draft. If you see any issues and would like to continue this discussion on the talk page, please go ahead, but I am pretty happy with the article in its current state and will not be pursuing revising it significantly as I had planned. Faketuxedo (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faketuxedo, I think your explanations in your sandbox are reasonable, and you may want to leave a comment on the article's talk page with some of that reasoning from your sandbox and your comments above here as they may be useful in the future to other editors. In general, I don't think that language such as "Noted for" is useful to add and prefer adding the content without the unnecesary preface. As for the similarities added in the "Toilet Paper Bears" paragraph, I think WP:WEIGHT would encourage adding mention of the differences as well if that many similarities are being added, based on my recall of the sources from my previous edits, but I think your edit is fine given the work you have already put into the article and I would not object to any of them. – notwally (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have edited at Wikipedia, Citizendium and wikiHow. I may not know all the WP policies but I do understand basic research. IF WP claims to be an encyclopedia, then they should follow academic writing standards. If WP doesn't, it's not an encyclopedia and the info is untrustworthy. I presented a government document clearly stating Kamala Harris as a Border Czar. That's clear, official information from a reliable source. I would have placed these comments on the admin discussion page but it was locked. Thanks for reading my post. MDaisy (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on this as with many other topics you seem to engage in. The edit showing Kamala Harris confirmed as a "Border Czar" was cited with a public record official document housed in the united states congress on permanent record. Please refrain from removing this again. I will support [MDaisy] on any admin review of this subject.
You appear to be engaging in tendentious editing in favor of a specific political bias. I am asking again, politely, that you refrain from any more of this behavior. DanMan3395 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice projection, however none of your ill chosen claims on here change the fact that the document you are claiming does not exist, does exist, is on public record and cannot be changed. DanMan3395 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
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.
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.
Hello, I'm Knowitall369. I noticed that you recently removed content from Josef Sorett without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Knowitall369 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knowitall369, stop adding content that has been disputed on the talk page as undue. Instead of trying to edit war the content into the article, you need to actually participate in that discussion. – notwally (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
notwally thank you for your response. None of the content that I added has been disputed on the talk page as undue. If it is your claim that the content is undue, make that claim on the talk page. Or perhaps, instead of wiping away everything --- grammatical corrections, additional sources, new information, items that you claim are undue --- make targeted deletions of what you claim is undue and explain yourself. You are editwarring, and gaslighting me about it. You cannot possibly be serious in claiming that a comment you made about a different set of edits on July 11 is a permanent explanation for your vandalizing the entry. If you want participating in a discussion, I'd welcome it. Start by discussing.Knowitall369 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire talk page is a discussion about the content you keep edit warring to insert. See WP:ONUS and get consensus for your edit prior to restoring. – notwally (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Josef Sorett, you may be blocked from editing. You have now reverted three times without explanation other than twice to refer to an imaginary discussion on the Talk page. If you have something substantive to say, explain it on the Talk page. If you have substantive edits to make, make them. If you have a claim that the inserted material is not consensus or is disputed, dispute it. Repeatedly reverting while gaslighting does not a dispute make. Reread WP:ONUS.Knowitall369 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, the other editor has responded to my talk page comment on the article, and I think it would be preferential for us to be able to continue our discussion there, rather than a block for either of us. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. (I also only made 3 reverts after my initial copyedit, but I don't think that is particularly important because I am requesting for both me and Knowitall369 to be unblocked so that we can continue to discuss on the talk page.) – notwally (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am requesting that both Knowitall369 and I be unblocked so that we can continue our discussion on the article's talk page. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, and I believe we can work out the issues on the article's talk page (hence why I initially deleted my 3RR report before Bbb23 restored it). I also did not violate 3RR since I only made 3 reverts after my initial copyedit, but I do not think that is particularly relevant because I am requesting for both me and Knowitall369 to be unblocked so that we can continue to discuss the content on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Article: Mark Karpeles
I appreciate your feedback but would prefer if we work together constructively rather than making assumptions or reverting large portions of edits. Let’s focus on collaborating to enhance the content rather than undoing each other’s efforts. I will just work on this article, since I followed up with Karpeles story for the last few years.
I made my Editor account 22 days ago near Shibuya in Tokyo. I’m pretty familiar with the topic from the media, so please stop accusing me of being a sock. OnikageTenchu (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[warnings from sockpuppet deleted]
Administrator's comment. Looking at the situation at Mark Karpelès, it is reasonable to infer that the user who left the warnings above is also evading a block, so the warnings above should not be held against Notwally—nor does 3RR apply to Notwally's edits. (Although if a fourth revert were to be necessary, at that point a report should be filed at WP:SPI.) —C.Fred (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions regarding your changes to Pennsylvania legislators' biographies
Hi. I just wanted to reach out to you because we seem to be having a difference of opinion regarding the content that should be included on Pennsylvania legislators' biographies. I'm most concerned about the bios of the women legislators that you've been editing because I've been working to upgrade many of the bios for Pennsylvania women who have served, or are currently serving in, the Pennsylvania House and Senate as part of the Women in Red WikiProject. (Research that has been done regarding the underrepresentation of women on Wikipedia has shown that one of the reasons that women's bios are often deleted is that they are short articles that need to be expanded.) Several Wikipedians have been working to add useful biographical content to these Pennsylvania women's bios as we come across them, and also to add more citations to these bios. Unfortunately, your recent edits removed much of that work that we've done. So, I wanted to see if we can open up a dialogue about this because I'm sure that, as a good faith editor, your intent is not to weaken this biographies and put them at possible risk of future deletion. Is it possible for us to work together to improve the quality of these biographies? -- 47thPennVols (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate good faith dialogue, but I am concerned by your misleading statement that "[my] recent edits removed much of that work". I removed the lists of committee assignments because they were sourced to a primary source with no indication of why they are noteworthy (and at least one listing was outdated or wrong). I also removed your recent attempts to create separate sections for small paragraphs of only a few sentences, as per WP:OVERSECTION. Those were my only changes [8][9][10]. Your apparent implication that I removed some significant amount of content is not only false, but even further misleading considering that I created all three of those articles and most of the content in them is actually from me. Further, all three of these biographies are for members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, which means they are notable by default and the length of the article has no relevance to a deletion discussion. I would appreciate an honest discussion on the relevant articles' talk pages if you are interested in discussing this further. Thank you. – notwally (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for responding. I'm happy to discuss. Regarding the accuracy of the committee assignments, I actually checked the Pennsylvania House bios for Leslie Rossi and Ann Flood earlier today. The committee assignments that you removed were/are actually current (as of their House websites today). So, I'm not quite sure which bios you're referring to when you're saying that "at least one listing was outdated or wrong." With respect to content removal, I tend to be more of an inclusionist who works to keep articles by improving them. So, my question here would be, rather than removing useful content if you feel it's only been cited by a primary source, why not simply look for another source(s) to support the existing content that you feel would be better? Regarding your statement that "the length of the article has no relevance to a deletion discussion," respectfully, I have to disagree with you. There have been more than a few deletion discussions over the years regarding the bios of notable women in which article length was cited as one of the reasons for proposing an article for delection and/or supporting the deletion proposal (roughly phrased as "there doesn't appear to be much there to indicate this person was notable" or "she doesn't seem to have done that much," opinions which were able to be changed when more content was found and added to the bios up for deletion). And with respect to the usefulness of committee assignment data, lists of committee assignments can be quite helpful in helping readers to better understand their biographical subjects. A legislator's committee assignments indicate not only a legislator's particular areas of expertise/interest, but can be indicators of just how much power that legislator has, which can help to illustrate that bio subject's notability. (Appropriations committee service, for example, would be something noteworthy that should definitely be included in a bio, as should leadership roles as the chair or vice chair of a committee.) Hope this perspective is helpful. Kind Regards. - 47thPennVols (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You need to actually look up the notability guidelines for elected state legislators. (2) You need to actually check the sources you are citing (and claiming that you have checked) because the House bio you cited does not show Leslie Rossi as a member of the Urban Affairs Committee [11]. (3) We can debate all day about the relevance of committee assignments based on our personal opinions, which is why you need to find reliable independent sources to show whether the content is noteworthy so that our conversation can be based on something substantive rather than just our personal feelings. (4) I appreciate the lengthy dialogue here, but please continue any discussion on the relevant article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Meyer
I've partially reverted your previous edit, restoring the Party political offices template. He is a major-party nominee for governor, so he's entitled to that template (as all other nominees are). Woko Sapien (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woko Sapien, I have reverted that again, as being a Democratic gubernatorial candidate is not a "political party office" (as I stated in my edit summaries removing that content). Further, I think this type of box at the end of the article is excessive, and I would note that candidates such as Joe Biden and Donald Trump don't have these boxes at the end of their articles. If any of them win their elections, then that will be reflected in the infobox where it lists their office. I would also note that you are the one who added the box to the Gay article, and I also think it should not be there either. If you want to discuss further, please continue the discussion on the article's talk page and ping me there so that other editors interested in the article subject can be aware of the conversation. – notwally (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true: both Biden and Trump have those templates on their pages. This is not a "gain consensus" issue. This is simply how major-party nominees for office are formatted on Wikipedia. Winning or losing the general election has no bearing on whether the template is used. For instance, Don Bolduc lost his 2022 Senate bid, but is entitled to that template because he was the Republican nominee. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I was mistaken about Biden and Trump, other politicians such Nancy Pelosi do not have those boxes. Where is there a discussion or consensus determining that political party nominees (and for only "major parties"?) should be incorrectly designated as party offices in templated boxes at the end of articles? – notwally (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits on recent poet pages at BLPN, and particularly to Barrett Watten, which I am reluctant to be too active in editing. The trimming is much needed. I think that the only times I've added something back [12][13], is where it is something which might tend to make a solid notability case. Too much time on Academics and Educators AfD leaves me pretty attuned to NAUTHOR and NPROF. Beyond the potential usefulness at an AfD discussion, I feel that something that concretely contributes to passing an SNG is probably the kind of thing that should go in the article. Anyway, beyond the message of appreciation, I also want to let you complain to me if you think I've done badly on any of these. Messaging directly since it spans a couple of articles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe, an awarding institution is a reliable source "for documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious)". If neither the organization nor the award is notable and there is no independent sourcing for it, then I do not think it should be included in a BLP. If your motivation is to include the content for a potential future AfD, would you object to moving the content in the Watten article to the external links section? – notwally (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you right, your main concern is as to whether the inclusion is WP:DUE. I am suggesting that anything that is a probably pass of a notability criterion is generally due to include. In particular, a well-established poetry magazine devoting an entire issue is probably due; similarly with the main later-career prize [14] of an (admittedly smaller, but established in 1960) academic society. These are independent of the subject, and I don't think that we require independence from the awarding organization here. The judgement of whether Aerial or the ACLA are weighty enough to be due isn't something that we'd generally include in the article. I'd be happy to start a discussion on the article talk page if you think they're likely to be insufficient. Both look pretty solid to me for a mention, at least at first and second glance.
As far as actual AfDs go: I think Watten would probably pass with or without the awards+honors; with Fleisher, I think that the (trimmed) reviews together with the others I found are pretty helpful to make the case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For DUE purposes, those are both primary sources and cannot be independent of themselves. If having a particular award or honor is noteworthy for a particular individual, then why have no other sources ever mentioned them? At least the Aerial (magazine) has a Wikipedia article (although it also has a notability tag at the top), and if you think the special issue it published is sufficient noteworthy, then I think it should be moved to the career section rather than an "honors" section. As for the ACLA award, I would appreciate a talk page discussion about whether to include it because I think that allowing biographies to include awards from non-notable organizations is not a good guideline to follow as it leads to too much promotional/resume-like content, especially if there are no independent sources that have ever mentioned the award or the article subject winning it. – notwally (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and started a discussion on the talk page on both. We'll see how the WP:BLUDGEONing goes... I didn't think I'd be able to set forth your case effectively; you'll likely want to respond to do so. As far as coverage of the award: other universities seem to consider it a big deal when their faculty wins the award. (That's independent of Watten and of the ACLA, although university newspapers obviously have other problems.) Libraries index the ACLA as the main US comparative literature association, e.g. [15]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you just removed ALOT of content and Vandlise the page Mao Mao: Heroes of Pure Heart??? Like ok, unsourced content removal is not a tereible thing but, you've messed up really hard with that, since you DID NOT checked a source do it's alright and you know how you've remove beodcast topic? There's a show called Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja That have the same problem as Mao Mao, but you that with this one it's "poorly sourced"! Do EVERYTHING on Wikipedia from your vision not sourced thing HAS TO be removed cuz, poor sourced or lack of it that's been for years not? plus, but also a sources that have a source but, it's on social media of creator that shows that sayes the show was added to the network, cuz only articles and magazines on web counts? Do Broadcast and prodction topic thing HAS to be removed becase it doesn't have a "Good Source"???
Sorry that I just got mad about that what you've done. Especially because you had no problem eariler, but now? I wouldn't be suprised if you would destroy whole page form top to bottom. I'm pretty much disappointed with you. Sorry. :(
One small thing: Parker simmons Social media's account are his own, for your knowledge, I don't know do there's gonna be some debate about that, but also Wayback Machine had been offline since 2 days at this point and people who will see this page likely will see this likely after turning been Online.
Other small note: Season 2 Infromations, Can be found across the internet, for your extra knowledge.
Grubisz440, social media posts are not reliable sources. See WP:TWITTER. There is a limited exception for people who are discussing themselves, but the details you are adding are mostly sourced to what appear to be random accounts, and the few details sourced to the creator's Tumblr site are not important enough to include, especially without any independent sourcing. As a result, I have once again removed most of that inappropriate content and sourcing from the article. – notwally (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Gaiman quote
Hello Notwally, hope you're having a great day! Thank you for correcting me on my edit on Gaiman. I didn't realise Gaiman was referring to himself in third person so got really confused why Gaiman was referring to Julia Hobsbawm as "he". Zinderboff(talk) 17:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I think the best practice is to always check the source regarding a quote, as they should basically never be changed to something that is not in the actual quote. I removed the quote there entirely, though, since it was confusing as it made it seem like it was a quote from the article subject when it was actually a quote by the cited source summarizing the article subject's position. – notwally (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Sorry, you were right about there being multiple (four) Milton shorts. I realized that the reason I only ever see the first one on YouTube is that the rest are auto-blocked by NBC since they were on SNL. BenStein69 (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree that this is an original research, and my latest edit doesn't even contradicts the film's credits. I remained the character's title as Colonel, while adding the citation confirming that he wears the rank insignia of a lieutenant colonel (source for which has been provided in exact timestamp on the channel of the film distributor's official channel, and the British Army official website for officer rank introduction), so all of my sources can confirm what I'm adding. It's your repeated revertion into the article is becoming meaningless, STOP DOING IT AND MAKE MY EDITS BACK. Howard61313 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth will it be sufficient for you to stop your revertion? For two among other examples, both the source from SlashFilm (an award-winning, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic-approved publication) and source from Cinetown (an annual short film competition and Annual Awards Fiesta) directly cited that the character is a lieutenant colonel. Is that the directness you want? When can you stop making endless revertion and let my edit (which is not disruptive as your unilateral claim) back?
Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus to add the content. The credits list his role as "Colonel Mackenzie". The first source you cite here uses "Lieutenant-Colonel Mackenzie" in the section title of a list-article, while using "Col. Mackenzie" in the article text. The second source is user-generated content that anyone appears able to edit and so is not reliable for use on Wikipedia. You have provided no sources "confirming that he wears the rank insignia of a lieutenant colonel", but have instead made that interpretation based on comparing images, which is original research. If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so on the article's talk page, rather than my personal page, so that other interested editors may be aware of the discussion. – notwally (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
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.
December 2024
Your recent editing history at Salah Choudhury shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
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.
I would suggest studying the NTS fallacy with dedicated intent before proceeding further with edits. It's one of the most wildly misunderstood fallacies due to the sheer quantity of misinformation spread on the internet, particularly due to it being most commonly invoked during highly contentious debates over religion and politics. For that reason, I think we should be erring on the side of over-specification rather than under-determination on the page, as the under-determination route has historically yielded very poor results (there's like 15 definitions floating around when doing basic googling, few ever coming close to being particularly accurate).
It is important to keep in mind that the NTS is not merely shifting the goalposts when confronted with a potential counter-example, it refers to something far more specific. The gold standard would be to refer directly to Antony Flew's given writings, which describe a particular a-posteriori claim being modified into an a-priori one in order to avoid the undesirable a-posteriori evidence 2607:FEA8:FCA0:7C7E:C5E9:C04B:C45B:BD57 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should use the article's talk page (Talk:No true Scotsman) to discuss article content so that other editors can be aware of the discussion. The talk page allows for content to be discussed and a consensus to be reached. For example, maybe some of the content you want to add to the lead would be useful to have in the article but would be better presented elsewhere. Please also note that all content should be cited to reliable sources rather than relying on original research or the interpretation of individual editors. If unsourced content is disputed by another editors, then a supporting citation should be added before restoring to the article. – notwally (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
