This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notwally, for the period January to December 2019. 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.
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! LizRead!Talk!23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page James Johnson. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:
Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
I reverted your edit because disambiguation pages are supposed to show the actual article title. However, since he is known as J.J., I added "or J.J." after the wikilink. Leschnei (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Wallyfromdilbert,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk!23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work on US politician articles. Please note that we don't normally link common terms such as "farmer" or "politician". Tony(talk)07:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your copyediting help, specifically Kathy McGuiness. But, per MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE, please don't put {{small}} around the degrees in the infobox. The infoboxes already use smaller than 100% font, and the combination of that and the small template makes the font go below 85% of normal size, which is beneath the minimum standards. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Message to"Wallyfromdilbert". Your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated, no doubt. I am a legitimate academic and practitioner in the field of medical computer science. The work that I do helps provide millions of child mental health assessments around the world at very low cost, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. It is important for this work that organisations using the SDQ and DAWBA are able to see that I am a legitimate and experienced practitioner; Wikipedia is a trusted means of providing confirmation. I would be most grateful if you might not reduce my entry so drastically. Many thanks. Mike Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F_Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.212.36 (talk)
My apologies for this contention; Wikipedia policies have evolved or I have been ignorant of them. As an academic who came out of retirement to support the SDQ project unsalaried, I have fallen out of the public eye and much of the material of which you request is no longer available. I could, as others who are known to me do, commission apparently disinterested third parties to ghostwrite my biography and create PR to substantiate it. I chose to add the new material myself and feel it not to be commercially promotional. The SDQ and DAWBA project are important to child psychiatry (over 5000 peer reviewed papers reference them). As the lead developer and operator of these measures, it is important to the organisations using them that the developers and operators are legitimate. As I explained, I am an academic in this field who was prominent "in the day". I am unwilling to have money spent to re-establish my prominence when my work in child mental health is already prominent, but unadvertised. Given that I seem not to have much influence in this process, I will bow to your edits, which I hope might accommodate these particular circumstances. I hope you will not be offended if I observe that your "pen name" might be better chosen to give confidence in your position, as I initially assumed you were a self-appointed vigilante. Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor m f smith (talk • contribs) 11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Professor m f smith, you need to follow the policies at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Regardless of your personal opinions, Wikipedia requires reliable, verifiable third-party sources. Wikipedia policy very clearly states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If you continue to revert edits to include your self-promotion without appropriate sources, then I will find an administrator to assist and also report you to WikiProject Spam for your edits.
Upon further reflection, I concur with your edit at Joe Biden. The "repeated praise" actually occurred during the course of the one visit and doesn't warrant prominence in the article. I found the VOA article to be consistent with the Reuters one and not propagandistic. I found the statement, "The Russian press has speculated that the Obama Administration would prefer to see Mr. Medvedev as the official candidate in next year’s presidential elections", to be reportorial and not editorial. I am comfortable with how the article stands, after your edit. Thanks for the thoughtful edit comment. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment as well, HopsonRoad! I appreciate you looking into the issue and for clarifying the context of the "repeated praise" usage. I had missed that they were referring to statements all from the same visit. I am glad we could have a beneficial and productive resolution, and I really appreciate how respectful and non-confrontational you were. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Speedy deletion nomination of Tim Kearney (disambiguation)
Hello Wallyfromdilbert,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mgbo120 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Tim Kearney (disambiguation) for deletion, because it is unnecessary and disambiguates only a single page.
If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mgbo120}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
The content is verified and true. The unsourced/un-cited data is also verified. Please do not revise.
Already provided 21 references to the data.
The source and information has been verified by the concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.242.22 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Lorena Gonzalez
Hey you made an edit on Lorena González in which you said "(not accurate. also not a notable event for gonzalez)". Excuse me, where was I inaccurate? Also this is the first time a City Councilmember has removed a public comment bully from chambers for a year in the City of Seattle's history.
JosefAbraham, the article only had a trivial mention of Gonzalez for requesting the removal of an individual from a meeting. The one-year ban was from a city department ("The city sent a written notice to him excluding him from city property last week."). Additional reliable third-party sources (not primary sources or original research) would be needed to state that Gonzalez was responsible for the ban or that it was a notable event for her. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert - A slightly different matter, but I noticed your edits removed some of the ballot return statistics from my electionboxes as well as the name of Lorena's spouse from the infobox. Cameron has been named on the dias several times so I wouldn't think it to be private. Those additional ballot return lines were something I was trying to include on all the seated councilmembers as I've been adding infoboxes. For councilmemembers who have made the switch to districts from at-large elections, it's interesting to see how the numbers compare between the years. For consistency, I'd like to also keep them in Lorena's article. Jwfowble (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Jwfowble, I couldn't find any reliable sources talking about her husband, and so it did not seem notable. I try to avoid information in the infobox that is not sourced and not mentioned in the main article, especially for BLPs. If you have a source, maybe you could also add a "personal life" section? That would seem to fit the infobox policies. I do think the article should have a reliable source before reinserting the spouse's name.
For the ballot return lines, I didn't think they added anything to the article other than clutter, but I don't really have a strong opinion. The "turnout" didn't seem all that important, and the "registered electors" was just additional information about that and doesn't seem relevant to the elected politician. For the "majority" lines, I didn't know what that even meant, and so that should probably have some sort of explanation. I wouldn't be opposed if you really wanted to add those lines back in, especially if you have been doing a lot of work on the Seattle politicians articles. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If there's no objection, I'd like to include those turnout numbers again but will add an editor's notation about why. The majority is just the difference between the top two votes (basic math from what has been reported) and it's really only helpful in cases when the races are close, but we have had a few very close races in Seattle in the past few years. I've only added that column for the general election because the primaries are so divided the majority row is kind of noise. The final elections where 39 votes differentiate the win tend to show where it's helpful - Lisa_Herbold
I had been doing some off-line drafting of some bio info for Lorena's page yesterday and then noticed the editor disagreement as well as some additional editors contributing. I decided to work on other stuff for a day and so my edits aren't in the middle of other folks working. I'll include a source for Cameron's name, although I will admit to not having seen a source for the middle initial yet. Jwfowble (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If you add a note about what the "majority" category means (although I still don't really understand its importance), then I have no objection to including the information you suggest for the election results. I just added a "personal life" section, which can be expanded with the information about her husband. I think JosefAbraham is talking a break based on the comments above, and so I don't think others will be making any significant changes anytime soon. Best of luck with your editing, and let me know if I can help. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll work on that article a bit more this afternoon. I would just suggest you break up your edits into segments that have detailed notes about what is removed, particularly with articles in stub status. I had several sources prepared to mark who the husband is, but had yet to find a source that has a middle initial as was in the infobox. However, without an editnote about the spouse name being removed, someone other than me would have a lot less info to go on to try to find a proper source for the name, at least without crawling through history and visually checking changes. Maybe use of Citation_needed or (hidden comments - view source) would be safer with developing/stub articles. I agree with trying to give some privacy, like I've only been including a number of children as I'd rather not put their names in just by being born to a local wiki-entry. Jwfowble (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice and information, and for your work on the article. I do understand your point, but I treat BLPs differently than other articles, and I remove unverified information from BLPs when I cannot find verification (which I almost always try to do before removing anything), especially for insignificant information such as the name of a politician's spouse. Breaking down and identifying all those removals in edit summaries would defeat the point of the policies for BLPs. If information is notable, then it will be added with appropriate sources eventually. However, with that being said, if I see that you have been working on an article, I will certainly try to let you know if I remove anything you have added. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm really gunshy about posting anything on WikiPedia these days. I did make some suggestions Wallyfromdilbert on the Lorena González talk page. Considering the sheer amount of controversy anything I post seems to invite on here, rather have some folks not too connected to the Seattle political scene take a look first. JosefAbraham 23:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)
@JosefAbraham: That is a shame you feel hesitant about helping to improve Wikipedia. A core principle of Wikipedia is to be bold: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." However, another fundamental aspect of Wikipedia is the dispute resolution process, especially WP:BRD, which stands for "Bold, revert, discuss." Basically, you should be bold about making changes, but if someone reverts your edit, then you are required to go and discuss your side on the article's talk page (rather than simply reverting back, which is called edit warring, and has lead to your issues with other editors). All information should also be properly sourced with reliable, independent third-party sources, which will make other editors far less likely to revert your additions. If you read through the policies I have link to here, in addition to the policies recommended by other editors elsewhere, I think you will be able to make very helpful improvements to the encyclopedia.
WallyfromdilbertThe source for proper names for Seattle elected officials can be pretty invasive. That's why I didn't link to Robert M Johnson's name citation. It's a public record around here and this is a source that has been covering the council for years and is interviewed frequently, but these are not documents I'd want to put on the councilmember's wikipage. https://sccinsight.com/2018/04/19/council-members-file-2018-financial-disclosures/
Is the objection to Lorena's spouse's name just about the inclusion of the name (which you have removed even from the editor's comments) or the citation? While BLB has restrictions, there is some leeway about selfsource for their own info. Jwfowble (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Jwfowble, given that she is a local politician, I think we should be a little more sensitive to the privacy issues, and I don't see how her husband's name (much less full name) is relevant to her page, especially if having to rely on a primary source (WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources."). She may mention him sometimes in public, but her website doesn't mention her husband at all, and the other newspaper articles you had there previously didn't either. I think a reliable, secondary source would be better before including based on what WP:BLPNAME says: "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Do you have a reason you think his full name should be included? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert (talk·contribs)I'm just seeking a clear reason for the removal, since you've repeatedly suggested it was based on citation quality. Then I spend time to provide citations and you still removed it, including their wedding announcement/registry at theknot.com, which should be an acceptable and not full-of-personal-info-like-court-records source. Now you're suggesting it's your interpretation of the a different policy. If you don't provide edit summaries stating that or open a talk page discussing that, I (and other editors) don't know exactly what your conflict is here. There's a lot of BLP policies that really rely on multiple editors to interpret what's acceptable, not just you or me. I'm not sure what's objectionable to the last name of a spouse of a public figure. Jwfowble (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
My objection has always been that the information is not notable and primary sources (like a wedding registry or public filings) are not appropriate for that information (see my first reply: "I couldn't find any reliable sources talking about her husband, and so it did not seem notable."). If you think his last name should be included, then I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page of the article and trying to gain a consensus. I would have no objection if you included a reliable, third-party source with the information (the previous two news articles did not mention his name, or even that she had a husband, merely that she was married, which makes them entirely inadequate). Discussion on the article's talk page a better place than here since other editors will be able to see and comment.Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert, you're deleting edit notes on Lorena's page that help others to find what needs verified, removed cited information about which branch from a system of several community colleges she attended before transferring, and the cited sources talked about a few years between law school and the undergrad degree, which you erased. You're being reckless in what you're removing. Jwfowble (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The full college campus information is in the main article. There is no need for it in the infobox, where it just adds clutter to the small box. Your edit notes are unnecessary. If you think the year she stated law school is that important (it is usually 3 years, so I see no need to include it if we have the year she graduated), then make that edit. This is why you need to stop reverting edits and actually use the talk page. Please do not accuse me of being reckless for careful copyediting to improve the article when you are doing blanket reverts that include removing her website and the actual name of the law school she attended. Discuss on the article talk page instead of here if you want to have a further discussion. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Notwally. You have new messages at Talk:Psycho (1960 film). Message added 18:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can please say, why did you remove so much information from the page including his published books, articles, information on career etc.? Ganesh2019 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert, is the information regarding the list of published books and articles be considered as WP:SPAM? How to cite the fact that he is a management professional by career, was MD and CEO of some companies and currently a professor in a management college, please help. These pieces of information are important because otherwise the page becomes misleading and gives an impression that he is only a political figure, thus violating WP:NPOV.
Ganesh2019, yes, the list of books and articles was WP:SPAM. If he is only notable for being a political figure, then other non-notable aspects of his life may not be covered in his Wikipedia page. It all depends on what the sources say. As stated in the first sentence of WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you can find reliable third-party sources that state the information you want to include, then it would be appropriate to add it to the article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert, thanks will do the future edits accordingly. However, I wonder, he is a notable author known worldwide for his works on various socio-political issues, then why can't his works be included in the page? There is a Bibliography section for Indian authors like Arundhati Roy. If I provide mention of this works proper reference such as Amazon book purchase link, is it allowed?
Ganesh2019, Arundhati Roy's notability as an author is supported by numerous reliable sources. Her bibliography is relevant to her notability and is limited to major publications. The main body of the article for Anand Teltumbde needs be expanded based on reliable sources before a comparison can be made. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Why you are frequently restoring the problematic edits which includes a very selectively cherry picked sentence from Washington Post, unverified claims, and sentiments of anti-government activist Arundhati Roy? The issue has been covered by range of media sources and we must not give impression that we are siding with this individual. Ganesh2019 is a sock and has been blocked for sock puppetry. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
See the article's talk page. I left a detailed comment, including addressing plagiarism and BLP issues, which have to be removed from pages. Also, note that The Washington Post is a major news publication, and the article is titled "He is a prominent anti-Modi intellectual. The Indian government wants him behind bars." Similar claim in most other sources, although we should continue this type of conversation on the article's talk page. Not sure what you claim is "unverified" either in my rewrite, but you should just remove that specific information, not by reverting entire rewrites. Also, if you want to include a broader range of sources, then include those additional sources, rather than removing verified information. Please do not restore the BLP issues or plagiarism because those are serious issues. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop deleting criticisms of Seattle City Council members
As per WP:BLP and WP:BRD, please use the talk page on the article to discussion contentious additions to a biography of a living person that have been removed by another editor (especially when removed by multiple editors). I would be more than willing to further explain the reason for removing your content there. In addition, please make sure you assume good faith and not make accusations against other editors without evidence. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
FYI, from the top of that noticeboard, "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page". Given your recent comment [1], you should probably learn a little more about Wikipedia and its policies, especially WP:CIVILITY. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Citrivescence and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Derek S. Green should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek S. Green .
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
If you don't mind, can I just know what conditions would need to be met before you would feel good about including the Schwartz incident on Debora Juarez's page so that the Wikipedia-reading public can learn about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan.folio (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires reliable sources to include content. You should find reliable sources that claim Juarez has been criticized to include that statement. If you want to have any further discussion about the article content, then contribute to the article's talk page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that some vital information about Jim Jeffries editing practices has been removed from his page. I would recommend including that information to protect the rights of any individual who may use Wikipedia as a resource when making a decision as to wether or not to agree to an interview with him. This may protect not only those individuals but also any person who has edited this article about Jim Jeffries and has left this information out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CD:C200:1C:2936:745E:192F:C8BB (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Why was the information on Jim Jefferies and his set up of Avi Yemini edited out? Its factual and very much proven by simply watching the REAL footage instead of the footage Jim and comedy central edited to make Avi look like some racist ass hole when he's the exact opposite. Jim Jefferies is a liar and cheat and deserves to be exposed, they must pay you well to cover his con-artistry up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.161.202 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Why has the Jim Jeffries wiki page been locked? To prevent truth coming to light, Comedy Central and Jim Jeffries need to be exposed. If it was alligations that could not be substantiated, I'd completely understand but there is video proof and it goes against what Wikipedia is and stands for. 2001:569:BDD9:CD00:6546:60D3:4053:D001 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Why does Jim jeffries page not have information about his dishonest editing on his show and the anti Muslim comments he made when he thought he wasn't recorded. There is video footage of all this on YouTube so why do3s it seem like the truth about Jim is being purposely censored? The incident with Avi Yemeni happened and there is evidence to prove it. Jim has tried do ignore his controversy but why doesn't Wikipedia print the truth about him?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6C0:E569:2D13:AC95:6D3D:DEC9 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Edits to Anand Teltumbde
@Wallyfromdilbert:
Why did you remove information on Anand Teltumbde's management degree? What was the problem in the sentence I added?
He is the recipient Ambedkar Centenary Award (UK), Ram Manohar Lohia Centenary Award, Vikas Ratna and Maharashtra Foundation (USA) awards for social work and literature. [1] The Karnataka State University conferred him a Doctor of Literature (D Litt) (Honouris causa) in 2014. [2][3]
That reference is an opinion piece, which is not appropriate for factual statements in a BLP. Information should be based on reliable secondary sources, like the mid-day.com article about the Doctor of Literature appears to be (which I moved to the education section). Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Vox is not cited as a source at all in the Maza article. So I'm not sure what you are talking about, but you should probably do some reading about Wikipedia's policies, including WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I want to clarify that I didn't reverted your edit on Carlos Maza article, I edited it after another user had reverted your edition without achieving consensus. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I had to revert this diff due to promotional content, and as such reverted your revision to the article in the process. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 20:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rlin8: That revert was unnecessary and added back into the article unsourced content. Instead of reverting, you should have just removed the link. And after you reverted, you should have went through and removed that content that I already had marked was unsourced in my previous edit summary. Please do not insert unsourced content into articles. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
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 ~~~~}}.
I removed information from a BLP as per WP:3RRBLP. If you look at the content I removed, e.g., [2], the information is not supported by the source at all. Contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP is supposed to be removed without waiting for discussion, and the burden is supposed to be on the editor who inserted it to provide a reliable source. The editor who inserted the content was aware this information was inaccurate, but continued to add it [3]. I thought removing false information from a BLP was explicitly exempted from 3RR. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe that going forward I need to be more careful with quickly reverting other users' edits, even when justified, as it encourages edit warring back on their part. I also should have explained the issue more clearly with Ajñavidya when removing their changes and included the BLP exemption in the edit summary. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I have made no change to the plot section of the article. I have no idea when the movie is set, but it looks like multiple other editors have removed your changes. I would suggest you use the talk page for the film's article and try to reach a consensus with the other editors. I have also left a welcome message on your own talk page, which provides some useful links about Wikipedia and its policies. You should keep in mind that content on Wikipedia needs to be verified and not your own original research. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Billy Mitchell's son was a first-team all-Florida football player who was named to Florida HS Football's all-finals team after a 27-yard field goal and a 70-yard punt in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. Wikipedia articles include noteworthy and adequately sourced information like this about immediate family members all the time, but a comment on the article's talk page suggests the current reference doesn't even justify mentioning him.
I actually spent over an hour researching this and trying to select the best possible references, so I'm obviously pretty disappointed that you just obliterated them. We could probably make an argument that all of the family information in every Wikipedia bio is "unnecessary," but I don't see what harm could possibly result from including those references. Thanks for your time.
You should probably talk to the editor who removed the information or start a discussion on the talk page. I only removed your unnecessary over-sourcing, although I agree with the editor who removed the information. Almost all family information in Wikipedia articles about minor public figures is unnecessary. Please see the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons: WP:BLP. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
All I see at WP:BLP is that information about family members may be part of an article "if reliably sourced." Were you trying to point me to something else? There's already at least one comment on the talk page agreeing that the mention of Billy's son is UNDER-sourced. That's the issue I was trying to address with my last edit. I obviously wish *you* would join the discussion on the talk page, but I get the feeling this is going nowhere. Thanks again for your time. 208.53.224.72 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
GSP
It clearly states in the championships and achievements section that GSP has the most consecutive title defenses in the WW division. On top of that, the link to the UFC Welterweight Championship page is provided in the same notes section for more source. Cdneh95 (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To clear this accusation by Wallyfromdilbert, the other editors (NOT me) who disagreed with "they are" to refer to a single person, include: 65.96.171.160, 85.238.102.93, and 47.202.93.192. These people are not me, and I don’t know them. It’s an unpleasant escalation to accuse someone else of dishonesty and I ask for an apology. We disagree about the edits, fine, but no character attacks! Let’s keep it civil. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
If you have a problem with my conduct, feel free to bring it up on a relevant noticeboard. You have used multiple IP addresses and have been the only person who has argued for your position or supported your position on the talk page. If you do not like the responses of the editors on the talk page, then look into other forms of dispute resolution, but edit warring is not one of them. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Let’s keep this at Farhad Manjoo. No need to make a federal case. I wanted to clear my name: you are wrong in suggesting that the three other editors I cited who disagree with you are me: they are not me, and I do not know who they are. You see an ip for my cell phone and laptop on the most recent changes—that has nothing to do with the other ips/editors who have disagreed with your changes. 2601:184:4080:8D01:2D94:7571:107E:2CB1 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Gab poor source conflict
After you reverted I did a more precise edit that simply removes one low-quality source - We still have many higher quality sources affirming the connection between Gab and the alt-right!!!!
Someone just restored this poor study (and it's included redlinks) back into the page when we clearly have better studies already referenced on the page!!! I don't want to edit the article again since this would cause an warMfernflower (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, this is in regard to undoing my edits on Lorena Gonzalez's bio, so sorry my bad, I'm trying to be better about my edits. I'm going to go back in and find new sources for all the changes I made on Lorena's page that cited Linkedin (my bad), but you mentioned pages that didn't mention Lorena at all. What were those citations in particular because I've just been reading a lot about her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrufForEveryone (talk • contribs) 05:00, August 8, 2019 (UTC)
Please make sure to read about Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources here: WP:RS. This was the source I clicked that did not mention González. It looks like most others do, but some do not support the content that had been added to the article. Also, please remember to sign you comments with four ~~~~. In responses on talk pages, you can indent with a colon each indent (for example, a response to this would use three ":::"). If you have any questions about editing, I can try to help you here, but if you want to further discuss González, you should do it on the article's talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the citations and removed all social media! thank you for the help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrufForEveryone (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 8, 2019 (UTC)
Hi there WallyFromDilbert! I hope all is well! I see that you recently edited David Oh’s webpage to remove about a dozen newspaper articles that talk about his legislation, Army career, support for local Philadelphia Veterans, and other information.
There is more information that will be posted shortly about his military career and on-going service to our Veterans. I, myself, am a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s troubling to me to see David Oh’s Wikipedia page missing a lot of critical information.
What can be done to allow this information on David Oh’s page without you deleting it? Do you want to meet in person to review the data and facts together?
Information on Wikipedia articles needs to be based on reliable sources (see WP:RS) and given due weight to appropriate content (see WP:DUE). Wikipedia has a higher standard for content that deals with living people (see WP:BLP). If you want to discuss any changes to the article, then you would use the article's talk page: Talk:David Oh. Also, please note that removing sourced information from the page or inserting WP:PROMOTION as a replacement would not be appropriate. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting him. Hopefully this gets solved quick. I suspect Fajsknajsk wasn't the first username he used at Exodus anyway, there was simialr stuff being added by IPs before he showed up.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The editor had also been using other similarly named accounts that Bbb23 had banned [4]. I wouldn't be surprised if the editor continues to show up in the future, and so it's good you started the SPI. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The editor seems to have a certain perspective that aligns with the blocked user, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest the accounts have a connection beyond that. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess the Checkuser would've found it if there were anything there. I just find the interest/support slightly odd.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wally, thanks for your message. While editing Crowder's page it seemed the top summary section was unnecessarily showcasing the latest scandal. The incident that's referred in it is discussed at length further down in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolsaptamanal (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The point of the lead is to summarize the significant information in the main article body. You should also explain your deletions of content and other edits using an edit summary. If you want to further discuss the article content, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
3rd gender pronouns - reference updates
I've removed a dead reference. The site it references no longer holds that webpage. It should be removed and replaced with a working one, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolsaptamanal (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you wiki-stalking me? The edit I made in the Tucker Carlson article (which I presume is the one you're making reference to in the warning you left in my talk page) was intended to be an extension of the previous edit which is not marked as «minor». The minor edit I made afterwards was to add a summary about that information in the lead; I intended to do it in the first edit, but I overlooked it. This is not in any case activity suspicious of being vandalism or stealth editing. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you be more precise about what you feel are both UNDUE and any BLP violation in my Asha Rangappa edits to which you objected? I've read them after reading your objections and I can't find any. The subject presents herself as possessing expertise by virtue of being an ex-FBI agent (though her career was rather brief) and as a legal expert. However, she did not base her conspiratorial opinion on any facts to be found anywhere in evidence. The notion guards, plural, somehow conspired between themselves and with Epstein and actually took money, to enable him to kill himself after he somehow paid them off, in order to take advantage of such an opportunity, stretches far beyond the bounds of reason, in my opinion. It certainly isn't remotely "the simplest explanation," and wasn't shared by anyone else that I've been able to discover, and it certainly hasn't been found to be legitimate in the inquiries into his death so far. So if she imagines some remarkable scenario for this to be the case and broadcasts that conclusion widely to the media and her 390K Twitter followers, that would seem to reflect on what she claims to be her expertise, and be a legitimate inclusion into the article. It's not Alex Jones-level hypothesizing, but notable all the same, I'd think. I wonder if she has ever tried a criminal case or even testified in one? Also, "V" has accused me of edit warring but in fact she or he had reverted the edits of numerous other WP editors, i.e., on March 19th, April 15th, August 14th, August 15th. She or he also rejected "India Abroad" as a reliable source for the birthday, but actually relies on it for many other additions to the article. She or he then adds material from the subject's own website that has no other cited source and uses Asha's own Twitter feed as the source for other edits she or he made, rejecting "Sauce for the goose..." I'm just trying to understand the parameters here. Activist (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added further citations from other media sources now. Do you think this is sufficient? Trying to understand what sort of citations would be required for such a well-known fact. The change was later reverted by another anonymous user, so I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambailey (talk • contribs) 10:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't revert the last time. The Times article looked reliable so I left it alone. If someone else is removing the content, you should probably start a discussion on the article's talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Categorization
As "Jewish American politicians" is a subcategory of categories related to US Senate, US House, and American governorships, I understand why those are considered redundant and apologize for the superfluous category. Why though is "Jewish women politicians", a category that included various US Congresswomen before I started adding it to various pages, considered redundant? On any page that I've checked, it's not been a subcategory of existing categories. Thank you for any clarification you may provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agpuh (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Similarly, I'm noticing that several MoC that already had "Jewish American politicians" categorization prior to me adding "Jewish American women" are not having those removed. I'll clean those pages up soon as I know whether or not "Jewish women politicians" is appropriate to re-add — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agpuh (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I think "Jewish women politicians" could be added. If you see any with "Jewish American politicians" where that category is already covered, you should remove it. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Would adding "Jewish American politicians" be appropriate for politicians who served in other elected offices, other than positions that have subcategories? Isidor Rayner, for example, was elected as Maryland Attorney General prior to serving in Congress. Or should a category for "Jewish state Attorneys General" category be created and treated as a subcategory? Agpuh (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
"Dumbo" is considered to have underperformed at the box office because it did not meet Disney's expectations. This is stated in the reference links following the sentence, ergo, it is a box office disappointment—ChristianJosephAllbee (talk • contribs) 03:32, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to "underperformed", that way it's still neutral—ChristianJosephAllbee (talk • contribs) 16:05, September 5, 2019 (UTC)
You actually changed it to "failed to meet expectations at the box office" [5], but I think that accurately represents the sources. I also think your copyedit helps the lead flow better. Thanks, and take care. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
I apologize that it took you three posts to get me to see both my mistakes at that BLPN thread. I think this is our first interaction, and I hate to start off with someone on a such a confrontational foot. Sorry about that. Cheers, – Levivich18:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, I don't think our interaction was confrontational, and I request that you strike that. Just kidding! Being serious, no apology was necessary, and I am working on making myself clearer for exactly these types of reasons anyway. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your responses to my concerns, and I am glad we were able to work it all out. I am sure you are very passionate about making Wikipedia a valuable resource, and I hope we cross paths in the future and get to enjoy working together collaboratively. Also, please don't hesitate to let me know how I can improve my editing or interactions with other editors if you ever have a suggestion. All the best. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You have gone over 3 reverts. I strongly suggest you self-revert your most recent changes and take this discussion to the article talk page. I do not believe any of your external links are appropriate, which is why you need to discuss your changes on the talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
No. The external links you added are still inappropriate spam, and as far as I can tell, the rest of the content you added is either unsourced or not sourced to reliable sources. You have violated 3RR and need to revert your changes and take this discussion to the article's talk page. If you do not, you very likely could be banned from editing for a period of time. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
No, you need to remove all the external links you added, the arbitrary selection of "selected articles" that has no sourced criteria for inclusion, the use of the word "recently", the unsourced claim about "winner of numerous awards and fellowship", the unsourced claim that she is an advisor at Harvard, the unsourced claims about her published poetry, and the inappropriate content and source for the claim that her music "has been set to music" (not an independent reliable source. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh -- I didn't add the links I changed them from references (sources) from inline links -- that's what I thought I was supposed to do. The links are the sources but now they are external rather than inline. Isn't that right?Poetic1920 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC) I asked --Ser Amantio di Nicolao for help on this too. Poetic1920 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sources that use the "ref" parameter and are independent and reliable are generally fine. The inappropriate external links you need to remove are in the section you added called "External links". Also, you need to remove all of the other unsourced or inappropriate content I listed above: the arbitrary selection of "selected articles" that has no sourced criteria for inclusion, the use of the word "recently", the unsourced claim about "winner of numerous awards and fellowship", the unsourced claim that she is an advisor at Harvard, the unsourced claims about her published poetry, and the inappropriate content and source for the claim that her music "has been set to music". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not looking to beat a dead horse since the discussion is closed, but I tried CNMall's trick of looking in the book preview on Amazon (book is here https://www.amazon.com/Temples-Modernity-Nationalism-Hinduism-Transhumanism/dp/1498577741), turns out that Geraci had numerous other references to Raman in the book. A passage from pages 180-81 deems Raman "the most prolific author on Hinduism and science," and notes C. Mackenzie Brown's criticism of Raman's approach. Hope that puts your mind at ease as to Raman's notability, since the article has been kept. I wish you the best. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
According to the book's index, Raman is mentioned on 5 pages, which is not "numerous other mentions". Regardless, being mentioned briefly in two books is not "significant coverage" and does not meet any of the criteria for academic notability. The AfD was closed as "no consensus" for good reason. Please do not post to my talkpage regarding this topic anymore. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Do you have any reliable sources that talk about his college education? Even a self-published source (a source from Benjamin himself) could be acceptable for that type of information. If you have any sources (such as links to webpages), then please either add them to the article or let me know and I can try to add them and their content. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The Reich article is now in Newsweek as well. Reich has asserted the "mental incapacity" argument with increasing insistence this year, but this article seems to be sort of ignoring that and has few recent sources. Should we not be including this stance, just as many other stances he's taken are included in the edited section?[1][2][3] Thanks for monitoring it, though! AquatiCat (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think something could be added based on the secondary sources, such as The Independent article you provided. I don't think the article is well written in general (I mean, it literally has both a "political positions" and a "political stances" section, which also overlap with other sections), but information from reliable secondary sources is definitely more appropriate than having his Wikipedia page simply express what he has written. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at article. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. see your previous 30m history
Re: Police_National_Computer Rather than add a 'citation needed' as a reasonable person would have done, or better yet - read the actual reference provided - you decided to go on a campaign of simply reverting edits such as this. Your approach is not only time wasting but also unhelpful. Why not remove the word you find problematic or perhaps provide a 'citation needed' tag? If you're going to claim it'd take too much time, then why are you on here if you're not going to do something properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apeholder (talk • contribs) 01:53, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
I hope you realize the difference between, 1., "For other uses of mace" and, 2., "For other uses of mace". The first might make me look for ways of using the spice, the pepper spray, or the medieval weapon. The second would make me look for other uses of the word mace. The latter is exactly what a disambiguation page contains. DCDuring (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the phrasing has the ambiguity issue that you describe, especially given its widespread use on Wikipedia. I also do not think that the italics is a useful way to try to make your intended distinction. If you think the wording is unclear, then maybe change to "For other uses of the word". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Citations
What format do you use for citations? I was trying to edit my hometowns' page, but I couldn't add a proper citation. Thanks.
MaosMao (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
MaosMao, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I generally add citations using the standard templates, usually either {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. Those templates can be added to articles between <ref></ref> tags to make them into an endnote citation. However, citations also need to based on reliable sources, which you can read about here: WP:RS. If you need to learn the basics about citing sources, you can read a short tutorial here: WP:Tutorial/Citing sources. Hope this helps. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, your edit was bad form even if in the end I agree you are correct. First, given the material you were removing and the nature of the article it would have been best practice to add a talk page comment explaining why you felt the sources didn't support the claims. On the surface they do but when looking more carefully I agree they don't. In such a case it's best if you start by, in a non-confrontational fashion, explaining why the sources, which do seem to contain all the supporting evidence/quotes actually don't. Second, when you were reverted, per BRD, you should have explained you position rather than simply edit war. It's very poor form to make a BOLD change, then re-revert when that bold change is rejected. I certainly could have looked at your unexplained changes more carefully but really, the burden is on you to explain why the sources don't support given that was stable text you were changing. Springee (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
None of the sources supported the content that was removed. Next time, you should actually look at the sources before claiming that you have verified that they contain certain content. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Midsommar (film)
My source for mystery horror was AFI. What's your source for folk? I've started a discussion at the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The source you cite is actually "AllMovie.com", not the American Film Institute. AllMovie's genres appear to be user-generated, and are not considered reliable per WP:RSP. AFI actually describes it as "horror drama" [6] while an AFI interview with the director calls it "folk horror" [7]. Numerous reviews also describe the film as "folk horror" (e.g., Variety, AV Club, The Guardian, and Time Out.) I do not see any sources describe it as "mystery horror". Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wally, thanks for your message. In regards to the Islam page lead - the grammatical error I identified is; "monotheistic religion teaching that there is one God". "Monotheistic" means a belief that there is one God, so there's no reason to have it said again directly after.
Thanks,
Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 09:18, September 27, 2019 (UTC)
Bbx118, the central teaching of Islam is the oneness of god. You may want to review Tawhid to get a better understanding of this. The concept is far more complex than simply the belief in one god (i.e. monotheism). For example, Catholicism is also monotheistic but teaches the notion of the trinity. If you would like to discuss this issue further, please use the article's talk page so that other editors can be aware of the discussion. I had previously started a discussion here: Talk:Islam#Lead sentence. Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages using ~~~~. Take care. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Strongly suggest watching this
Billy Mitchell's "first ever perfect Pacman score" was not only the first, but it wasn't even legitimate. It was spliced.
The real first perfect Pacman score was done by Bill Bastable in 1988.
Thank you
I'm not sure where to put this, so my apologies for going here. re: Jan Schakowsky, her own page is where I read she was previously married before marrying Robert Creamer, a noted lobbyist. I think the edit I made should remain, but I'm unsure how to attribute the source. It's apolitical, and a fact of her personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priamel (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
If you link the source, I can try to help. Please note that to say "second husband", you would need something that says she was married only once before, otherwise it could be her third or fourth marriage, for example. If you want to talk about the article content further, we should do it on Talk:Jan Schakowsky so that other editors are aware of the discussion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The point is that sapient beings are capable of thought.
True AI will be sapient like the humans are. The biological "brain" isn't strictly needed. Only capability of reasoning, etc.
My hamster is sentient. So is a frog.
Please undo your undo.
89.228.232.208 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Sentient" means capable of thinking and feeling, while "sapient" means humans (from homo sapien) and can sometimes be used to mean non-humans who are capable of more complex reasoning than mere sentience. Do you if any sources are available that mention "sapient" that could be used to support your edit? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Just so you know, it looks like your RPP was flagged for having an issue. It may just be that the {{pagelinks}} template needs to be added, although I don't have a lot of experience with RPP. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
You reverted my edits to Saw II, calling them vandalism. They weren't vandalism; I cleaned up article names, spacing, wording, etc.
I have not vandalized any articles on Wikipedia, ever. I think you need to undo your revert (unless you are one of those users that likes to revert edits because you "own" the article). Lynn Denlon (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You should actually look at the edit I made [8]. You had accidentally made edits to a heavily vandalized page, where someone had added extensive information about an Indian film called "Dangal". Also notice that the changes that you had made to the vandalized page were actually reinserted by me right after I reverted the vandalism [9]. Rather than accusing others of bad faith, you should look through the edit history and try to make sure you understand the situation. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Wally, as noted by many others, the aricle as it stands is clearly biased in favor of the Act. The paragraph I added listing several organizations in opposition to the Act can easily be validated. I didn't just make this up. Simply didn't have the time last night to go through and create all the reference links.
The article as it stands gives the impression that only the Catholic Church, Mormons, and crackpot fundamentalist haters are opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMesa171 (talk • contribs) 18:23, October 23, 2019 (UTC)
The additional information needs to have cited sources, especially when it is potentially controversial. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and so I would suggest simply adding the organizations individually as you are able to find sources for them. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bea Priestley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Longdon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I was looking up Owen Benjamin and since there was a paragraphs on his anti Semitic and homophobic views I thought that it was important and relevant to add that he claims his father is both Jewish and gay. The wiki page is locked for editing and you were the last update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.141.185.3 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your edit on the David Stringer article, Ballotopedia states the following, "The sexual misconduct allegations dated to a 1983 case in which Stringer was charged with sex crimes in Baltimore, Maryland. He was later expunged.[1]..." https://ballotpedia.org/David_Stringer
Probation before judgement is NOT a plea deal. This is a common misconception. The fact that Mr. Stringer is still a lawyer in good standing in three states (Arizona, Maryland, and the District of Columbia) (which a convicted sex offender would not be), and that his case was expunged (also not permitted for sex offenders) shows he was not convicted at all.
I have written (I as in Anita Cohen) a revised and up-to-date bio of Mr. Stringer, and would like to submit it for your consideration. I am having trouble with figuring out the form for the citations and would appreciate any help.
Since the sources conflict I'm now leaning towards removing the line claiming that Stan voiced J Jonah Jameson. It's one line in a post credits scene, barely notable. I'd appreciate your input to the discussion since you reverted the changes first. -- 109.79.176.137 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for quality articles about politicians' biographies such as Elizabeth Lockman, Derek S. Green and Lindsey Williams, for a frequrnt edit summary "expanding article", for a pure user page with a focus on "helping to make sure article content is verified", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to edit your articles - I notice that if almost anyone edits articles that you edit {for example, Saw II or Saw 3D) you will revert the edits without any reason. I will not edit any articles that I see you as a main editor listed in the edit history; I know different since I saw how you treated other editors that you didn't want editing your articles (even though articles aren't supposed to own articles on Wikipedia). Claim that you don't own the articles, but until I see different behavior, I will believe that (and what we both know is true) you think you own the articles that you are the main editor of. Don't worry. I will also warn others not to edit any articles they see you as the main editor in if they look at the edit history - always look at the edit history before you edit; you don't know which users are frequently editing the articles and I wouldn't want to (and wouldn't want other editors to) upset certain editors (like you). I know what the repercussions are if I do. Once again I'm sorry. I will never edit an article that I see you are the main editor for again. 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain why you reverted my edit and reinserted inconsistent hyphens/en dashes and a redundant wikilink [10]? Also, please stop blanking article talk pages [11]. If a talk page is too long, it can be archived, but it should not be deleted. See WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. Finally, note that blanking your own user talk page is allowed under most circumstances, but all those warnings other editors have given you are still available in your talk page history. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
You removed a citation I had for The Daily Beast, saying that it was not a credible source. However, the line in question involves a direct quote Arnold gave the publication, and is therefore both relevant and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisoliverrichardson (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
You need to include reliable sources when you add content to biographies of living persons, such as your edit to the George Papadopoulos page, as per the WP:BLP policy. On the Tom Arnold (actor) page, your addition did not include a direct quote [12], and the vast majority of the addition was not sourced at all. The content also does not seem relevant for an encyclopedic biography as per the WP:DUE policy. For example, is it going to be relevant to his biography in 10 years? If something about Arnold having an obsession with Trump is relevant to add, then it needs to have more reliable sourcing and be added in a more encyclopedic tone. For further discussion about article content, please start a discussion on the relevant talk page, such as Talk:Tom Arnold (actor), so that other editors are aware of the discussion. Please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~.
Finally, you need to declare if you have a conflict of interest per WP:COI and you should likely not be making direct additions of material from your own reporting. You should instead make an edit request on the article's talk page, proposing your suggested addition there for other editors to review. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alert
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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
The plot paragraphs in on the Spider-Man films have their character referred to by their superhero names instead of their identities in these movies cause the films are the source this Sjones user is having the plots in his own words instead of the source words in the plot that was written when the article was created in the past. This has got to stop.--73.115.123.246 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not clear about what you are talking about, but reverting the article back months to an old version with numerous problems in it is not the way to improve the article. You should pay attention to what you are changing: diff. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with the issues with that IP editor. I agree, I think the best approach is to just ignore unless you contest a specific edit request the IP is trying to make. If you want to take it to ANI/AN, you can, I won’t try to stop you or talk you out of it. I just know that those places can also be big time-sinks, and to me, it doesn’t seem to be worth in when we don’t need any real change to be made, and the IP has no means of doing any damage to the article. But if you still want to, that’s fine, just give me the heads up so I can be ready to chime in.
Given the responses and support by you and other editors at BLPN, I agree that ANI would be more of a timesink than helpful. I'll ignore the IP editor's repeated pings unless they have something concrete to present for inclusion in the article (which I would gladly help them add). Several people have expressed their frustration with the IP editor's behavior, and so its nice knowing I am not alone with that. I just have to continue to learn from you more experienced editors on the best ways to deal with these types of editors. Thanks for all the time you have put into this as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Rodney Reed
Please consider what you remove and do not remove from this article. Substantial parts of the material added are directly relevant to the article because they were evidence in the case. The cocaine arrest might not be relevant, but other material is because it testifies directly to the history of how he was caught. You are misinterpreting BLPCRIME. It is important to the article and should be included. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figuresBueller 007 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Bueller 007, I have very carefully considered what I removed from the article. WP:BLPCRIME states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." The fact that allegations of crimes were used as evidence in his case does not mean they should be added to Wikipedia. Please remove that content because it is a serious WP:BLP violation, and instead participate in the discussions at the article's talk page or BLPN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Bueller 007, you are adding WP:BLPCRIME violations against multiple people in that article, including the fiance and an entirely unrelated individual. Please stop and remove that content immediately. None of these individuals are "public figures" and you need to instead use the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Please consider *other ways* of changing the article besides removing important material. For example, if you don't want to use Lawhon's name, then just figure out a way to omit the name while still making the article sensible. Important pieces of information do not need to be dropped in their entirety. And again, these are not BLPCRIME violations. They are reported in secondary sources and are important for actually understanding the article. If you're worried about it, figure out a way to keep it within the guidelines. By dropping this stuff completely, you're whitewashing/sanitizing the article. Lawhon is a relatively unknown person, so you may have a case there. Reed is definitely NOT an unknown person at this point, so according to those guidelines it is *completely acceptable* to report crimes that he is accused but not convicted of, as long as you say *alleged*. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
How is the information about Lawhon even relevant to a biography on Reed? Everything I removed was a BLP violation, and none of these people are public figures. Being mentioned in newspaper articles for one incident does not make you a public figure. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Instead of restoring inappropriate content, use the discussions at BLPN or on the article's talk page to express your views on why the information should be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Dude, this guy has a petition signed by 3 million people[13] asking for his clemency and he's been covered in every major news outlet. He's not "relatively unknown". That's a totally asinine claim. And you changed a statement saying that Reed had previously was being investigated for rape and beating and attempted murder with a statement that it was just an "investigation". For what? Who knows? Again, the standard specifically says that for people who are not relatively unknown, you can mention crimes they were not convicted of as long as you say "alleged". Read WP:BLPCRIME. The material added is covered in multiple sources and it's relevant. It's NOT a BLPCRIME violation to talk about Reed's prior charges. They were used against him in being charged and convicted to death! They're completely relevant. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Reed is close to a "public figure". He is a relatively unknown person convicted of a crime who has gotten some media coverage. If you want to continue this discussion about article content, please do so on the article's talk page or BLPN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Your additions are violations of WP:BLPCRIME, which was already discussed on BLPN, and reverting those violations is an exemption per WP:3RRBLP. I had previously asked you to discuss your opinions at BLPN or on the article's talk page (both on this talk page and on your talk page). I have now started another discussion on the talk page. Please contribute there or open a new thread on BLPN rather than restoring the material. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I have talked to you before about this particular entry. As it concerns a living person, I am very aware of the guidelines, and have done a lot of research on this person. There are still a number of important things wrong with the current article (I have a list if you want to see it).
I have written an article to replace the current one, complete with full citations. The citations range from newspaper articles, to documents. As a research librarian with a Masters in Library Science, I have checked and double checked the citations.
May I send the article and citations to you? I would really like to replace the current article as soon as possible. Or, is there another place to send the rewritten content to? No one responds to me on the Talk page for the articles.
The best place to discuss the article would be the talk page. The only comment I see from you at Talk:David Stringer was from September and did not include any proposed changes, which is why it may not have received responses.
If you have a drafted rewrite of the article, you could put it in your sandbox, which you should be able to find using the link at the top of the Wikipedia page (I think this link should work too: [14]). That way others could view it and comment on it.
Now you should wait for feedback. You should probably include sources for the claims you make on the talk page, as several of them are contradicted by the sources in the current article. Regarding your drafted rewrite, you should review policies such as WP:OR (which includes WP:SYNTH) and WP:BLPPRIMARY as well as WP:NPOV. The article should address the most significant biographical aspects as reported in reliable sources. The tone and style also need to be more encyclopedic rather than promotional, and it should not contain entirely unsourced sections, such as on his education and attorney career. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Uziel Gal is not Uzi Gal
Hi, thanks for your helpful comments. I've posted a note regarding the identity of Uzi Gal on the talk page of The Terminator 2. רועה טוב (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Steven Crowder page has a piece of information that is untrue and I notised that you'd edited it meaning you'd have the ability fix it at one point in the introduction it says that he said homiphobic and racial slurs when that is untrue. He had commented on the mans ethnicity by calling him mexican I believe it was and he called him " gay " he had never said any actual slur at all so I'd love it if you could edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4501:F9F0:A10D:27CB:44D3:2787 (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
That content is supported by numerous sources (e.g., [15]) and discussions on the article's talk page have reached a consensus that it should be included. As another editor recently commented there, "who in the world would consider 'Mr. Lispy queer', not a homophobic slur?" – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Owen Benjamin primary sources
Just responding to your removal of my additions to Own Benjamin's page. Any of stuff I added can be confirmed by watching his channel. A lot of the things on his wiki, even the "cited" ones are out of date, and speaking of sources, most of them are secondary source documents rather than primary. This man has literally thousands of hours of video on-line, why would you need to apply to secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.52.138 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Very is definitely needed because it shows that Alita's brain wasn't completely human. It was very human as in almost human but not quite. I will not quit editing this page. There is a misunderstanding that Alita's brain was 100% human it was not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bec32173 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
But your very human brain was miraculously intact. So by leaving human brain in the description people will think Alita’s brain was human, it was very human. Why won’t you allow what was exactly said. It’s a lie. I won’t stop editing. Tell the truth Bec32173 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting what was said in the movie. The "very" seems meant to emphasize that the rest of her is not human. Do you have any sources to support your interpretation? Otherwise, you can see if anyone supports your interpretation on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Why are you taking it down. I’ve proved that the description is wrong. Watch the movie, dr ido’s words prove me right. Bec32173 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Please edit my talk page without making a new section each time and please indent your comments. You need to discuss your changes on the talk page and wait for other edits to discuss. You adding "intact very human brain" does not make sense, and the addition from a quote in the film is not needed. You are now editing disruptively, and you can be blocked for making more than three reversions of content in a 24 hour period per WP:3RR. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It is a movie, that is the primary source. I am quoting the movie. I am just dumbfounded. I guess I don’t know how this works. Bec32173 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
So your interpretation is correct and mine is not? Why not just put in the exact, correct words and let people decide for themselves. Editing incorrectly is a dangerous precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bec32173 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Very must be included. It was said. It has multiple meanings. Your choosing to believe one and disregard any alternative meaning. Very narrow. Bec32173 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, please note that the above guideline says that where films are co-national productions the nationality should be left out of the first sentence but included further on in the lede section. So if you have removed such information completely from lede sections please correct this in line with the guideline, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:WallyfromDilbert, thank you for commenting on the BLPN in response to my post. I do want to request that you reconsider, only because the current version has some major inaccuracies and the current version has had 14 sources removed. What are your thoughts? Thank you again! Everettstern (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You have repeatedly removed valid and sourced information from Owen Benjamin's page. You are attempting to whitewash the things he has said and been documented. I consider this vandalization. This is not the first time you have removed valid sourced information from a right wing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBuster21223 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You cannot label a person as a "far right racist and an antisemitic conspiracy theorist" when none of the sources you added even do so directly. Those types of characterizations would need very strong sourcing per WP:LABEL, which says they "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". You are using clearly biased sources such as "rightwingwatch.com" without even attributing them, which is already problematic enough in the "Views" section to which you keep adding poorly sourced content. The appropriate place to discuss your concerns is on the article's talk page: Talk:Owen Benjamin. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Primary genre
On the page WP:MOSFILMS I didn't see where it states what is or isn't a primary genre. May you please point out where it states what is or isn't a primary genre. And how does one go about deciding community wise what is a primary genre for film. The section does state primary and sub genre can be included. Prietodream (talk) 07:16 December 2019 (UTC)
Determining a film's primary genre and what is appropriate to add to a lead would take place on the article's talk page. As for WP:FILMLEAD, it states the lead sentence should have "the primary genre or sub-genre". Content needs to be both sourced and given due weight per WP:DUE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wally--wanted to alert you that I re-added the content you reverted from Tucker Carlson's page. Thanks for your feedback--this time, I attributed to Media Matters, pulled out the deprecated source, and replaced it with a more reliable one. Hope this clears up any issues. GeauxDevils (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I see you added a source, but im not sure that source is reliable as they list a lot of seemingly British productions as US productions. Recently an editor changed dozens of articles to US coproductions using that source and was reverted on all of them, editwarred and got blocked, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I have always been told that AFI is a reliable source, and they seem to have comprehensive information. Do you know of any community discussions about AFI being unreliable? Regarding the specific film, it was distributed and financed by an American production company. I believe United Artists provided basically all of funding. I do not see any reason to doubt AFI's classification given that level of involvement, but we could discuss it further on the article's talk page if you want. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
See Eon Productions the production company of the James Bond films is British, there is obviously US involvement but they are officially British productions for reasons such as tax purposes, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is obviously US involvement, then I'm not sure what the dispute is. I have always interpreted the "country" infobox parameter broadly since it is a vague category with no exact meaning, and the broader interpretation seemed less likely to be contentious (e.g., I would imagine that strong nationalist personality would care more about having their country included than other countries excluded). My personal preference would be to get rid of the country parameter entirely and not label films with a "nationality" at all unless relevant to specific films, but I don't feel strongly enough (or experienced enough) to start a serious discussion or RfC about it. Interpreting tax law for each country involved would be too complex though I think. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks WFD for comment. Yes, I do have a conflict of interest, since I am JERS. The original entry about me was written by someone else many years ago. I did not realize that updating it myself would be a problem. What should I do?
JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner111 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, JERS, thank you for your response. Wikipedia has a lot of policies, and so it is good to ask for help! In general, individuals should not write their own autobiographies per Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Those pages are going to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better than me, but in general, you should disclose who you are on your user page (User:Rayner111) and then use the article's talk page to recommend suggested edits (Talk:J. E. R. Staddon). When suggesting changes on the talk page, you should try to rely on reliable independent sources as citations for any content that is not basic biographical information. If you have any more questions after reading the links above, I can try to help or at least try to point you in the right direction. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Wally. My nom-de-plume is also old and dates from a time when I knew even less about Wiki than I do now. Is it possible for you to suggest any specific problems? As far as I know, everything there is accurate. Thanks, JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner111 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear there are no inaccuracies in the article about you. I believe you had added some information about your research and honors that I removed for being unsourced or sourced to primary sources. I would be happy to help add some of that back in, especially if you can help with the sourcing. In particular, primary sources for the honors would probably be fine if the awards are from large, notable organizations. For putting in information about your research, I think it would be inappropriate to add substantial text sourced only to your writings (as also discussed on BLPN by another editor). Do you have any non-primary sources that discuss your research? You can also read WP:PSTS for more information on primary and secondary sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Please don't restore talk page that have been blanked by the page owner. Per WP:OWNTALK the page owner is allowed to blank his or her talk page with only very limited exceptions. Warnings and active block notices are not exceptions. Meters (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec)::There's no point. One is blocked, and the other is already at AIV as a block evading vandal. New warnings are just a waste of time. Meters (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I was mostly trying to see how active they were and how much they were paying attention to what they are doing as a LTA. You can see right now they are not even paying attention to their talk page. Messaging an admin who is online at the moment would probably be more helpful if you know of any. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If you know that they are allowed to blank that content then stop restoring it. You have already restored your warning three times today. One more and you will have broken WP:3RR, and this is explicitly listed as not being an exception to 3RR. Meters (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
You would need to support that information with a reliable secondary source (as opposed to a link to the studio's website). I looked briefly for a source before removing the content, but was not able to find any on Buffalo Film Works. If you have a source, you should add it in between <ref></ref> at the end of the sentence. I can also help you format it. Hope this helps. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If you have a conflict of interest, then you should not be editing pages with information about your employer or company per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Also, your account name violates the Wikipedia username policy that prohibits promotional or organizational names per WP:PROMONAME. You need to create a new account with a proper name and then disclose your COI before anything else. I have also left you a message on your talk page with additional information. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Hi Wally, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you too, Zaereth! I have learned a lot from you in the past year at BLPN, and I really appreciate all the work you do, especially your thoughtful analysis there. I hope you have a wonderful day and a beautiful New Year! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive in the least. It is a simple factual error to call Robert Reich an economist. This is from Wikipedia's own page on economists: "In academia, to be called an economist requires a Ph.D. degree in Economics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist
Reich is an academic with neither a masters nor a PhD in economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsfan10 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on independent reliable sources, which describe Reich as an economist. There is a discussion on the article's talk page already about this, with numerous sources. You can contribute there, but repeatedly restoring unsourced or improperly sourced information that has been reverted by multiple other editors is disruptive editing and needs to stop. Instead, use the talk page to gain consensus for your changes. Also, please format your comments on my talk page appropriately as explained in WP:TPG, including signing your posts. Any further discussion about article content should be on the article's talk page rather than here so that other editors can be aware of it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Your complete blanking of 13 'See Also' sections on various articles
Please note "Blanking sections sometimes violates policies, and should often instead be discussed beforehand before being removed (or totally rewritten) on a page."WP:Blanking_sections_sometimes_violates_policies
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please do not delete entire sections without giving a proper justification. There may certainly be good reasons to remove entire sections from articles, but doing so requires justification. Valid reasons for blanking sections include (but are not limited to):
Your templated message seems asinine considering that I left detailed edit summaries for all of my removals, as well as a detailed comment on your talk page [16]. Additionally, you are quoting an essay, not a policy or rule (and it is not a well-written or widely-accepted essay either), and it is not relevant to unsourced, irrelevant links in a "See also" section that have been copied and pasted to various articles, which I explained when I removed them. You need to be more aware of what you are doing, especially when you are contributing to WP:BLPs. You may want to edit other areas until you have a better grasp of the rules. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
No you are wrong, rules say you shouldn't behave this way. The procedure outlined in that rule is designed to ensure civil behaviour. If you can please stop deleting complete sections in breach of procedure all will be ok and you will not seen as uncivil and disruptive. Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bilby (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As a head's up, I realise that you see these as BLP violations, and if you are correct there's an exception to 3RR for those. However, you need to be cautious, as if these are not clear-cut violations, you may end up falling into a 3RR block. I'd recommend erring on the side of avoiding 3RR if there is any doubt that it is a BLP issue. It is particularly difficult when the dispute invovles a group, rather than an individual, but it might be better to seek advice at WP:BLPN. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I appreciate the advice. If my edits are reverted again, I will go to BLPN instead. If I am not mistaken, I believe you are also very experienced with BLP, and so any advice on the particular edits I made would also be appreciated (although I also understand if you do not want to get involved further). Thanks again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notwally, for the period January to December 2019. 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.
