This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notwally, for the period January to December 2020. 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.
Hi, this is just to let you know I'm putting in a dispute resolution request for the disagreement we have on the Cenk Uygur page. Cacash refund (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Going to DRN seems pretty premature given that you have left only four comments on the article's talk page, and the recent response you received from BLPN also disagreed with your position. You should have also included the other participants from the talk page, even if they have disagreed with your interpretations. You seem to be operating as a WP:SPA as your promotion of Uygur's views are basically the only edits you have made. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The response I received from BLPN was about the way the page looked before you put your tag on it. Then I changed the content, and Slywriter and I seemed to have figured things out. Now this disagreement over the primary sources tag is only between you and me, and we've already talked about it. What else needs to be said before a dispute resolution request is put in? Are we going to get anywhere talking about this more on the talk page? I think my references are to secondary sources, you think they are to primary sources.
Why do I seem like a WP:SPA when I add Cenk Uygur's political views to the Cenk Uygur political views section? I'm not looking to promote his views all over Wikipedia, it's his Wikipedia page. That seems to be an appropriate place to put his views. Do you disagree with that? Cacash refund (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It's important to note that the article is not his page; it is an encyclopedic article about him. Promoting a person's views anywhere on Wikipedia is not appropriate, unless that is a reflection of the reliable sources on the topic. Slywriter's last comment on the talk page was, "Though I am not sure whether the citations added by a second user are sufficient. They appear to all be sourcing through the Young Turks network of sites/shows/channels." You are a single-purpose account because your edits are almost exclusively about one article. Finally, the idea that two responses to me and waiting less than 24 hours to go to DRN is obviously not "extensive discussion", and if you really believed it was only a dispute between you and me, you could have taken gotten a third opinion first as would be more appropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Slywriter wasn't referring to my citations there. None of the citations I added were sourced through The Young Turks network, in fact I removed most of the citations I had in previously because they referenced TYT videos. We had sorted out our disagreement already, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't been back to comment on any of the ongoing issues.
You use the term "reliable sources," which is a departure from your "primary sources" argument. The reliable source on this topic would be the living person in question, because the topic is the views and opinions of that person. There's a difference between "reliable" and "secondary." Self-published sources can be reliable depending on the topic, including when the subject is publishing material about himself. see WP:BLPSPS here: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Also see #3 in WP:BLPREMOVE which states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP." The issue that Slywriter had was that at one point I only had self-published sources in my addition. Then I added sources published by other organizations, and you came in saying there was no difference because they are still "primary sources." And that's where we disagree. I say there is a difference, because my new references are not self-published, which means they directly contrast the TYT videos I had originally cited. Cacash refund (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
"Self-published" and "primary" are two different concepts, even if often related. WP:DUE has been repeatedly cited by others for you, and my use of "reliable sources" above intentionally referred to all reliable sources, as policy states that content should represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". If the only sources covering an article subject's political views are directly from the article subject, then they are not significant enough to include on the article's encyclopedic biography (as was explained when you went to BLPN). Otherwise, every person who is notable enough for a page and has a website or TV show could have volumes of excessive material about their own personal views. Considering that you only started adding this material after the article subject announced a political candidacy, it seems even more like promotion.
I also do not understand why you are now fragmenting this discussion to a fourth place, rather than keeping all the discussion on the article's talk page and engaging in a meaningful discussion there. If you would like to discuss the article content further, do so on the article's talk page so that other editors are aware. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I posted here because DRN guidelines told me I had to let you know I made a request, then you continued the discussion. I didn't fragment anything. Come on now. Cacash refund (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It's no problem at all. I don't think you meant it as an insult so much as an expressing of frustration, and I'm sure I could have done a better job at expressing myself as well. You have contributed so much to Wikipedia, and I appreciate how much you do here. Thank you for creating that article as well. Please take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Saw
Hey, Wally. I changed "Lionsgate" to "Lions Gate" at the first two Saw film pages because that was how they were named at the time. It became the same word just after the third film. I've based this on the films released by 20th Century Fox before they changed their name to 20th Century Studios, where the pages of the films released by Fox still indicates that they were released by 20th Century Fox, as it was named at the time of the release. – percytown (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Percytown, thanks for the information! I'll revert my changes back to your edits. Also, it is usually easier to reply to messages in the same place. If you want to make sure that someone who left you a message on your talk page sees your response, you can ping them using {{re|USERNAME}} or {{u|USERNAME}}. Please let me know if you have any questions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Carl Benjamin
Hi, I noticed a user was removed for "vandalizing" the page on youtuber "Carl Benjamin" .
Having read through the edit history, its pretty clear that the page was not vandalized, in fact, what the page was edited to, is factually correct.
Im justy wondering why you editted the page back to include incorrect information? I was under the belief that wikipedia was an impartial source of knowledge and not a playground for ideologues?
Its rather sad to see wikipedia using incorrect information in an attempt to defame somebody, even worse is when the page is "protected" from "vandalism" to ensure that the incorrect information remains up for all to see.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2020 (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. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (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. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
If my actions are that egregious, surely someone other than you will revert it? Why not refrain from violating wikipedia rules and edit warring to get your way? CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you check your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis ? I think the sentence that you created is not correct? The Book of Genesis,[a] the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament, is and account of the creation of the world and the origins of the Jewish people.=> is this a correct sentence?Garnhami (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I ment. I could not figure out what it ment "is and account"... Someone already changed it I noticed.Garnhami (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey there - I saw your revert coming, and almost self-reverted pre-emptively, actually, but I had second thoughts. :) I think I've always read MOS:LQ less literally. The examples given there are all very short, so in order to capture what I take to be the intent (i.e. quote usage that's logical), I try to apply it with some discretion. For the brief examples provided, I'm in full agreement. However, for much longer quoted fragments where the beginning of the sentence is technically omitted but the bulk of the quote is left intact, it seems more appropriate to me to treat is as an essentially complete sentence, and include the ending punctuation inside the quote marks. I find the alternative slightly awkward:
Current sentence in article:
Larson was initially hesitant to accept the role, but "couldn't deny the fact that this movie is everything I care about, everything that's progressive and important and meaningful, and a symbol I wished I would've had growing up".
Original quote:
"Ultimately, I couldn’t deny the fact that this movie is everything I care about, everything that’s progressive and important and meaningful, and a symbol I wished I would’ve had growing up."
Only two words of a very long quote are omitted. I didn't think MOS:LQ really intended the ending punctuation to be outside the quote marks in that case. I could bring this up at the MOS talk page, maybe, but what I believe to be the most consistent application of the guideline I would state informally as: "If the quote reads like a sentence and stops at the end of a sentence, include the end punctuation in the quotes. If it reads like a short phrase or fragment, don't." Not too big a deal, I guess. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Fru1tbat, I appreciate you taking the time to provide this reasoning. I understand your concern, but that has never been my understanding of the logical punctuation format. If only a few words are omitted like in your example, then the quote is a sentence fragment and should not have the ending punctuation inside the quotation marks. The second example in MOS:LQ is this same example, with only the first two words removed from the quoted sentence. Also important to note in your example is the 8 words in the initial clause, as part of the point of logical quotation format is to provide punctuation for the end of the whole sentence. I'm not entirely sure how "reads like a sentence" would be determined, and I think the "sentence fragment" language that is used on Wikipedia and other style guides is a more concrete standard to follow. If you still have questions about logical punctuation, it may be helpful to ask at the MOS talk page, although I can try to help as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Good points, and I concede that most people probably read the guideline like you do, but I'm not sure anything will make that almost-intact quote with the punctuation outside the quotes look "right" to me. Of course, "use your own discretion" doesn't really enforce consistency, but I've always preferred rules that provide clear boundaries while allowing for some wiggle room in the middle... --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
If you grew up using traditional punctuation, then logical punctuation may never "look right". s someone who was raised and now works in the United States, I personally use the traditional quotations in my personal and professional life, which is why I definitely understand where you are coming from. Since we all have our own perceptions about what looks best, I think style guides are useful at setting standardized guidelines, especially for issues such as punctuation. It seems easier to use a consistent standardization for this type of issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
MACE pepper spray are Federally Registered Trademarks
Hello,
In response to your reversions of my previous edits, I wanted to explain the reason for edits more fully in hopes that we can come to an agreement about my edits in order for them to be added without further reversions.
Mace Security International, Inc. has the brand name for MACE pepper spray federally registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under various registrations including Registration Numbers 0888911 [1] and 1909927 [2].
Proper trademark use includes policing use by others and educating others on how to properly use a trademark so when they see a trademark brand they know they are buying an authentic product. It is important to reverse the false information on the Wikipedia page to correctly reflect that MACE brand is a registered brand name. MACE brand pepper spray indicates that the pepper spray is made by Mace Security International, Inc. Since trademarks are source identifiers, the MACE brand communicates to consumers that those MACE brand pepper sprays originate from Mace Security International, Inc. and are not a counterfeit product. Since the MACE trademark is federally registered, which is not reflected on the Wikipedia Page, I wanted to correctly reflect the MACE brand so people are not misinformed about the federal trademark status of the MACE brand and that consumers understand that a MACE brand pepper sprays are only authentic when the products use the MACE trademark.
I have responded on the article's talk page to avoid fragmenting the discussion and to ensure other interested editors can be involved. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, Ricky may come from England but surely, legally, he is a British national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magna19 (talk) 23:11, March 8, 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to commonly use sub-nationalities, such as English or Puerto Rican, and so what would be the reason to not use the more specific description? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Given that England is one part of the wider nation UK of GB & NI, I think it's important to recognise this where possible. British people resident in England are legally defined as British nationals as opposed to 'English national'. He is resident in England, sure, but his nationality is British, not English. I appreciate this is very semantic but I think it's more the principle over point, and I would ask you to re-consider on the basis that following the legal format is more accurate when discussing nationalities. Many thanks. Magna19 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and I do not believe that any community consensus has determined how to describe people who are from the UK. The "legal definition" is not particularly relevant. The more specific description seems more useful, and that seems to be supported by briefly looking at sources too. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your view, though I don't know what you mean by 'community consensus'. Are we stating locations here or a nationality as defined by the law? Your position raises problems in that it asks the question of how far you logically extend 'description'. If he was from Cornwall, would the article describe him as 'Cornish'? Magna19 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
England is a country, and it perfectly acceptable to use as a lead description on Wikipedia. This has been discussed in the past, and those discussions have determined that "English" or "British" is acceptable. If you disagree, then start a discussion at the appropriate talk page or noticeboard, such as MOS:BIO. Also, please indent your responses. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Maza
Hi. I saw you reverted my piece on Carlos Maza. What I wrote were the words of Maza himself: see Twitter. However, I had to use a secondary source with editorial oversight. Otherwise, the reasoning would be that Maza writing about Maza on the Twitter-page of Maza would not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. But for some reason, when Maza's own words are notable enough to be directly quoted in a major news paper, it is reverted for being unreliable, even if the quote in the source is verifiably exactly the same as his statement on Twitter. I dont get the reasonings on Wikipedia anymore. Jeff5102 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Maza says in that Twitter post you link that this is not something he wants to talk about. We don't include things on Wikipedia that article subjects are forced to discuss because of a tabloid piece in a low quality source. A paper being "major" is not what determines its reliability, and the New York Post has not been found to be generally reliable per WP:RSP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wally. I wanted to update the quote from the character "M" that references the media mogul's death on his "luxury yacht". There is an article where the writer talks about how there is a nod to a real-life rich guy who died falling overboard from his yacht, but in the movie, "M" doesn't use that phrase. I didn't change the link to the article, and the thing I changed in the Wikipedia entry was the line delivered by the character in the movie. The "Movie Scripts" website, springfieldspringield.co.uk, has been offline for a few weeks now... but you can just watch the movie on Netflix, close to the end, to hear that the change I made is correct.
Yeah, again, I didn't change something that's quoted in the article, I corrected the quote from the character in the movie. The article linked just talks about the reference. The article itself also has the incorrect quote about "falling overboard". Obviously the writer was either talking about an earlier version of the script or he was unaware of the difference line from the film. But either way, the wikipedia information is just referencing that the writer intended there to be a nod to the similarity between the villain's death and the rich guy in real life. The wikipedia article might as well have the correct line from the movie, even if the linked article doesn't. But I didn't change a quote from the source, because the source is the movie itself. The link just shows the interview with the writer, who's reference to the script doesn't reflect the final product.Xanderox (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You would need to find a different source then or change how the Wikipedia article is written, because the source explicitly says, "which is hinted at near the end of film, when Judi Dench, as M, instructs Moneypenny to issue a press release stating that the villain died 'falling overboard on his yacht,' echoing Maxwell's demise". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you removed my recent edit of the Jerome Adams page, where I noted that he coached youth soccer in fishers, Indiana. And while I could not find any websites who note this, I do have personal experience with Adams, as he was my soccer coach for two years.
If that information has not been reported in reliable sources, then it should not be included in the Wikipedia article. Including it based on your personal experience would be original research. Those links will explain more about how sourcing works on Wikipedia, which does not necessarily have to be on a website. If you find a source, I can certainly help include it on the page. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for finding another source! I'm going to put in some language similar to what you had in before, citing to both sources. See what you think and reword it if you think it could be improved. We can also talk further about this on the article's talk page (Talk:Jerome Adams) so that other interested editors can be aware of the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I appreciate the AGF (just learned that) and help. I chose that NY Mag piece cuz all the relevant info was right there at the beginning, but I see how the Time one makes more sense overall. OK, I'll head over to the article talk page. Thanks again! 108.34.182.4 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, you can indent your talk page comments by using colons (:) in front of your comment. You just add one colon for each level of indent. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again! How about a pandemic to get me to learn this stuff (and a patient guide!). I'll bet wiki activity is up exponentially. That rewording was great. I woulda liked a nod to the lack of seriousness (child poem form), but no biggie. But in the latest one, I don't like "statements" twice. Also, not yours, but is "walked back" good enough? I dunno about "statements"--"assertions"? "declarations"? Also, I'm glad I got the study abroad right. Again, patience & guidance much appreciated. 108.34.182.4 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adding sources and content to the article! For the "walked back" line, that is poorly sourced to only his Twitter post (and another citation that doesn't mention Adams, making the material look like WP:SYNTH). Secondary sources would help determine what language to use to describe the change in the recommendation. For the double use of "statements", the whole sentence may be able to be improved by looking at additional sources for what language they use. Feel free to continue to be WP:BOLD and make changes to my revision. I think some back and forth almost always helps improve how articles are written. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I do believe there is perhaps a "extra to citational need" inherent factor of dialectic to all his work as "a comedian", he is non a psi chain authority per se ... we are confusing the jester with the king? "lost in the noise of stars, my poetry weeps"
I have a list of online sources ... but they are all Benjamin's or "incamp" and non from a third party ... will persist in adding citations, thank-you. Text mdnp (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation are added by using ref tags, which are explained in this tutorial: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources. However, if your edits have been reverted by another editor, then you need to use the talk page to discuss the changes, especially when you are adding non-noteworthy information to the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
April 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 1917 (2019 film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Meanwhile, please respect the long-standing and stable statusquo, which reflects reliable sources and a previous talk page discussion concluded months ago. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Please use the talk page to continue the discussion rather than continuing to impose your edit through reversion. Further revert will be reported as a breach of 3RR.MapReader (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The last comment on the talk page was by me citing the actual MOS guideline. Are you not able to use the talk page? Because I literally have been awaiting your response there, while you continue to revert multiple times without making any comments. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There are replies on the talk page. That you continue to seek to impose your edit in place of a stable status quo is disappointing. Your fourth edit making the same change within just a few hours represents a clear breach of 3RR. I would ask you to familiarise yourself with this policy and self revert your latest change, as it advises, to avoid the need to file a report in the morning. Thanks in anticipation of your respecting BRD, STATUSQUO and 3RR. MapReader (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you reading the comments to which you are responding? You made 2 reverts on the page without responding to my comment that had been waiting there on the talk page, and my edits were not all making the same changes, as one added both additional content as well as a source. Feel free for a WP:BOOMERANG if you want to report something, and maybe try actually continuing a discussion this time on the article's talk page. If a consensus is reached, then the material should be reinserted into the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree this needs to be resolved by discussion, but you are in the wrong by having made actually five successive reverts (refresh your memory of 3RR and you will see that it specifically highlights as immaterial than an edit may contain additional content). It is ironic that in the discussion immediately below you are advising another editor that if they are reverted they need to talk, not revert again. MapReader (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I am being dense but I don't understand why it is quote "disruptive" to change Mark Kelly's bio to "decorated Astronaut" from "Astronaut". He has won two distinguished flying crosses and a distinguished service medal, among other awards. You persist in reverting my edits and it is quite frustrating. Please explain why by messaging me.
JohnGhan11 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)JohnGhan11
Also in relation to edits on Richard Burrs page, I cited articles that substantiated what I wrote. I know I am new to this, I created my account today, but you reverting everything I do is not nice.
As with your #Edits on Thom Tillis page, you need to be including the sources in the actual article. Also, the sources your copied into your edit summaries did not support the content you added, and certainly not to include it in the WP:LEAD. Material has to be noteworthy and WP:DUE, in addition to verified and neutral. Wikipedia is not the place to express political opinions. If you read through the site's policies and make proper edits, you will be much less likely to be reverted. You may also want to work on articles that are not content governed by the WP:BLP policy, as biographies of living people have many more rules on how they are edited.
In addition to the resources in this comment and my previous one above, I have also responded on your own talk page as you requested. Please respond to either just there or here, as it will make it easier to follow the conversation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for continuing to edit before responding to your comments. Your comment was that I should add sources to my edits. I did just that. However, you still removed my edits for no apparent reason. I am not familiar with every wikipedia rule as I created my account today. However, from a logical perspective, I fail to see how changing Mark Kelly's bio page to "decorated astronaut" is bad. I have substantiated this claim to you multiple times, and it is not political in nature. In addition, I will add that other editors approved of that edit and "thanked me" for it. P.S. I am really sorry if I am causing problems cause I don't mean to. I just wanted to edit some pages and I am new to this. I had no idea that there are rigid rules that I must adhere to. Also, how do you cite the article directly in the page. JohnGhan11 (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)JohnGhan11
Further comment: In regard to WPLead Rules, I am quite sure that briefly summarizing recent controversies Tillis and Burr have had is "highly relevant" "draws the reader in" and is "neutral in tone".
Stop adding unsourced WP:PUFFERY to Mark Kelly's article and instead use the article's talk page. If you are new to Wikipedia, then you need to actually read the relevant policies, and not just look for what you think supports your beliefs. I provided a link above that explains how to cite material, but the material you are adding to the leads of those articles is inappropriate anyway. You may be able to add some of it to the main body of the article, but if you are reverted, then you need to use the article's talk pages to discuss what you want to add.
Also, please indent and sign your comments, and you also do not need to create new sections for the same topic on my talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought we had come to a consensus. Mark Kelly is objectively a "decorated astronaut" and that statement does not constitute puffery. Also, you still don't offer rationale behind your decision to revert edits to Bur and Tillis's article. I tell you explicitly how my edits comply with WP rules. Please explain.
Can we just come to an agreement. You stop reverting my edits on Mark Kelly, Tillis and McSally and I will be out of your hair. JohnGhan11 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)JohnGhan11
Stop adding inappropriate content to articles. You have now been reverted and warned by another editor as well. If you are not competent enough to learn the policies for editing, then you should not be editing here. I have provided you a tutorial for citing sources, and I have explained that you need to use the talk page if you are reverted by other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Rouge One - Vader's "Flagship"
Hello,
is there any justification for you to continually keep changing the words "Star Destroyer" to "Vader's flagship" in the article for the film Rogue One?
It is just a standard Star Destroyer and not a Super Star Destroyer of the type seen in The Empire Strikes Back and additionally when Vader does arrive at the end of the battle there is no mention or recognition by any of the Rebel fleet whatsoever that it is Darth Vader nor that it is his "flagship".
A military flagship is normally for an admiral and certainly in the Star Wars universe both Admiral's Ozzle or Piett in the aforementioned Empire Strikes Back clearly do command the flagship of the fleet and not a Star Destroyer (like Captain Needa in TESB) and the important fact Darth Vader is not an admiral.
There is no reason to use an in-universe term that the general reader would not understand. If "flagship" is incorrect, then "ship" is fine. If you would like to talk further about this, please use the article's talk page so that other interested editors can be aware of the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Kshama Sawant and references to earlier marriage
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.
Please continue this conversation on the article's talk page (Talk:Kshama Sawant).
Wally, the fact that Kshama was married to someone from Microsoft was made known when she campaigned on taking home only a 40k "average worker" salary. It also has been relevant when discussing taxing big business more via head taxes (Amazon is often named, and Microsoft sometimes get named too even though their Seattle HQ is smaller than Redmond). The citation that was placed in the article by you, to thenation.com, says "When Sawant, an economist and former software engineer, moved to Seattle from North Carolina in 2006, it was for her then-husband’s job—at Microsoft." which does a pretty good job at establishing the prior marriage. --Jwfowble (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
That is not widely reported and is only a passing comment in one article. Add content about her prior marriage with good sourcing to the article if you think it is "well known" because high quality sources should be easily found. Also, please use the article's talk page if you want to discuss content further, rather than my user talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the issue sourcing or what you think is notable, because you seem to take issue with the capitolhillseattle source only after the scope of details used from it was expanded. Now you're asking for more sourcing when mention of earlier marriage are stated in the source you added. I can find other sources, but is TheNation.com a reliable source or not for BLP? Jwfowble (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing and whether information is noteworthy or due are both connected. If you want to include sensitive personal details about a relatively minor public figure, then you need more than one passing mention in The Nation. Please use the article's talk page for any further discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2020 (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.
Alita Battle Angel
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.
Hello, I've noticed your reverts on the Alita: Battle Angel article and came here to explain. You're asking me to take it to the article talkpage but the talkpage has been commented on one time in over 1 year, it's a dead end and you know it. Instead, I brought my points directly to the other editor that engaged with us in the edit summaries and was met with no dissent when illustrating my evidence, so I am doing likewise here as it is altogether much more productive. Your concern about the point being partially unsourced is in reference to I presume it being Rodriguez's highest grossing film. I didn't see it at first as it was a long-standing edit but upon looking into it I saw that you were right, hence I have gone and found the source to corroborate the information as seen here[1]. The other part of the point, in regards to the box office note, is supported here[2]. Thus, both parts to the point are reliably sourced and I've alleviated your concern about the partially unsourced info. Every film's box office results are discussed in their articles, especially when there's something notable to say about them like one potentially not reaching their break even point as is the case here. To ignore such points and just talk about the gross as if it was a purely positive outcome when there's more to it and another side to it that is otherwise ignored would be against project rules as per WP:UNDUE. Davefelmer (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Please post this comment to the article's talk page, and I will respond there. I'm not going to discuss article content on my talk page when other editors are already involved with the issue on the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2020 (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.
Can you see my edit on the Alita Battle Angel talkpage?
Something's going on there, I keep making a new section to transfer my response but it collapses the page and doesn't upload every time I try and I'm clueless as to why. The actual edit appears in the edit summary, when I click to edit the page and when I click to see a preview but never when I upload it fully (to me at least), perhaps you can have a look or we can bring it back to this talkpage or my talkpage if there's something inherently wrong there. Davefelmer (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
That was frustrating! So the issue was a <ref> with no closing </ref> in a comment above that was breaking the page. It is working now, and I am going to comment there. Thank you again for moving the discussion there, and also for the source you located. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for helping out with it!
In regards to our discussion, are we in agreement as to my last response and the resolution proposed at the end of it? I will await your response in any case, and in the event of agreement, would be happy to leave it to you to decide which version to use in the text. Davefelmer (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wallyfromdilbert, hope all is well you way. Actually her name is sourced so I think it is valid. See the first citation, an Elle Magazine article. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I noticed that you removed the middle name from this bio that I added. I was interested in knowing why? Is there a certain rule that I need to be aware of? I researched other rappers such as Ludicris, Paul Wall etc and they had their middle name included. Please advise. Just interested in knowing. Thanks. ArborChamp (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, ArborChamp. In response to your question, all information on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources, especially content about living people. I could not find the article subject's middle name in any of the cited sources, and I also could not find it in any reliable sources when searching Google, and so I removed it. I am going to leave a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links for you to read. If you have any other questions, I can try to help. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
If you look at WP:RSP, it explains that Ancestry.com is not reliable because it is based on primary sources and user-generated content. I find that page very useful to quickly learning which sources are generally reliable or not. For names and other sensitive information on WP:BLPs (biographies of living people), it needs to be sourced to reliable non-primary sources (see WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY). We want to be extra careful with article content about living people, especially since our content can have real world implications. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have started watching the show Bigger (TV series) while in quarantine, which led me to look up the creator's info. I see that the producer Will Packer is cited but the creator and writer Felischa Marye is not. I searched Wikipedia like it says to do in the links that you sent me and she is also cited on Wikipedia on the Netflix 13 reasons why series page.
I have found sources and article links and am thinking about creating my first page. I was just wondering if you had any feedback for me.
Hi, ArborChamp. I think that would be a good idea to create a page for Marye, as long as she is notable enough. WP:Notability explains the general notability guideline (GNG), which is a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't think WP:Artist would apply for Marye yet, but a quick Google search suggests she may meet the GNG. Wikipedia is also always in need of more articles on notable women to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia.
For the basics on creating a page, you can visit WP:How to create a page. For additional information, you can also visit Help:Your first article. If you go to an article about a similar person (such as Will Packer), you can see how some of the standard elements work, such as the infobox, reflist, and categories. Make sure to include inline citations to reliable sources. You can always create the article as a draft article first if you think you may struggle creating the article or adding citations on your first go (see the links on how to create an article for how to do that). If you get the article or a draft of it up, I can try to take a look at it later in the week and help out. Let me know if you have any questions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@wallyfromdilbert Thank you so much Wally. You have no idea how much I appreciate your assistance...This is the only thing keeping me sane during this quarantine.. Yes, I think I will create a draft in the userspace and let you know when it's up. Thanks again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArborChamp (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: Salutations my Wikipedia mentor. I just wanted to let you know that I just submitted my first draft for review thanks to you. Thank you so much for all of your help. I am anxious and very excited. Wish me luck! ArborChamp (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
ArborChamp, I noticed your draft was declined, so I don't know how great a mentor I have been! Don't be discouraged though, especially since a main reason your draft looks declined is because there is already another draft on the topic. The next step is probably to incorporate your version with Draft:Felischa Marye, especially since yours is much better written and I think would have a better chance at being accepted. Also you should replace those two cites to Wikipedia that the reviewer mentions in their comment on your version. I should have some time tomorrow that I can try to help as well. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: Hi Wally, thank you for the feedback. Sorry for the delay in response I have been moving during COVID-19 not a good idea. Anywho, I'm back and not discouraged at all thanks to you. I will try merging the pages as you suggested and will also try removing the Wikipedia references. I read that Wikipedia does not accept actor or actress IMDB pages but does that apply to the series IMDB page as well? ArborChamp (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert:@Robert McClenon: Hello, thank you both for your help. I have made the necessary adjustments. Please let me know if I need to resubmit to AFC review or will the changes automatically resubmit themselves? Thanks again for all you do here. I feel a lot more confidant now and look forward to joining a project and or group very soon.ArborChamp (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
User:ArborChamp - It appears that you moved a draft on Felischa Marye into article space rather than waiting for review. While you have the right to move a draft into article space, it may be moved back into draft space or may be tagged for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Hi Robert, my apologies. The original message that I received from you stated to merge the page and remove the Wikipedia tags. I read the wrong help page and mistakenly moved the page instead of merging it. I have successfully merged the page and resubmitted it. I have moved the other back but it can be deleted as necessary. I greatly appreciate your help and I look forward to learning more.ArborChamp (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Billy Mitchell disqualified records
Hello--
I thought I might talk with you about the last couple of edits to Billy Mitchell (video game player). I'm entirely uneducated about Wikipedia editor practice and culture, so I'll defer to your judgement on my edit you've undone. I wanted to make it factually accurate, while minimizing the breadth of the edit. Admittedly, that left the language a little bent.
The statement "Twin Galaxies announced that an investigation conducted into Mitchell's submitted scores found conclusive evidence that Mitchell used a modified Donkey Kong circuit board for the footage of his two high scores" is not accurate. Here is what Twin Galaxies said in the cited announcement:
"The taped Donkey Kong score performances of 1,047,200 (the King of Kong "tape"), 1,050,200 (the Mortgage Brokers score) that were historically used by Twin Galaxies to substantiate those scores and place them in the database were not produced by the direct feed output of an original unmodified Donkey Kong Arcade PCB."
Just from that statement, a modified DK board or some sort of emulation would be possible alternatives. A broader read of the additional findings reveals that although the specific emulator could not be determined, the evidence overwhelmingly points to emulation, and away from an actual Donkey Kong board, hacked or otherwise.
Hi, Grinder2112. I think you make a good point, but I don't think the quote is a good idea (especially when using an acronym like "PCB"). How about just adding "or an emulator" to the sentence? Maybe "Twin Galaxies announced that an investigation conducted into Mitchell's submitted scores found conclusive evidence that Mitchell used an emulator or a modified Donkey Kong circuit board for the footage of his two high scores. How does that sound? I think there are other ways that the Twin Galaxies information could be stated as well without relying on their quote and while keeping the language understandable to the average reader. Also, maybe we could add the quoted language to the cited source in addition since that seems like helpful information if someone was curious about Twin Galaxies's specific statement? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds entirely reasonable to me. The "or a modified Donkey Kong circuit board" can even be nixed as well. The "conclusive evidence" demonstrated that the video frames were not being rendered with the display scan as would be done from an original DK board, but out of an intermediate buffer like an emulator would do. There's really no way to "upgrade" a DK board to just add a that buffer.
There was some speculation that he could have inadvertently used some sort of non-original or reproduction game as there have been legitimate re-releases of Donkey Kong, but it still would have needed to be an emulator to produce the results in the submission tapes. Thanks, Wallyfromdilbert, for hearing me out. – Grinder2112 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, BD2412! That is very much appreciated, especially from an editor as experienced as you. Thank you for all the good work you do here as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I only but it as minor edit as I was adding one or two sentences, can you please add that Tony begs for reprieve to Le Bail for sparing his family as that is a rather relevant scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSOCSOCSO (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
About Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
I know that what I put in the page actually happened. The problem is that it's hard to find sources about things that have to do with fans.--Inky100 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Corey Johnson (politician) 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!08:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Can you tell me why the free Jeremy site is an unreliable source? I personally think the quote from that source is useful to the article to understand the individuals motivations for not working with the grand jury. Thanks. :) W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please review WP:IRS. The website you mention is a self-published source. Sometimes a self-published source could be used if it is about the person who published the information, but the inclusion of the quote is clearly self-serving and therefore would not be permitted under WP:BLPSELFPUB. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Having encountered you on several biographies, I just wanted to thank you for all the good work that you do. Be well and stay safe; I am excited to further collaborate in the future! RedHotPear (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Consider this your only warning for edit warring. I don't care who started it or who is "right". If you continue, you can discuss it with a few admins. Maybe they'll agree with you and you won't be blocked. I'd suggest not finding out.
There is now a topic on the article's talk page. I recommend you use it. - SummerPhDv2.017:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved to end the edit war. Your options are clearly outlined on the talk page. If you feel you are in the right to restore your change without waiting for discussion, you will not be discussing it with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. Just so you know, after you post a comment, you can sign your posts using four ~~~~. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi regarding The Spy Who Loved Me, it was not an unconstructive edit but a correct one. The film is only UK for country of origin, as are all the Bond films prior to Licence to Kill. Too much information on Wikipedia is incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.186.77 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The film was produced by an American (Albert Broccoli) and is listed in the AFI Catalog: [1]. If you want to discuss this further, the best place would be the article's talk page so that other interested editors can be aware: Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (film). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC
Yes the film was produced by an American but that doesn't define the country, he was producing for Eon Productions which is a British production company. Should still be only UK because that's what it's always been till recently, thanks.
May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at The Hunt (2020 film); 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.
I have already shown consensus. You are the only one who doesn't recognize that. Please now stop edit warring, or risk being blocked. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You just stated on the article's talk page: "I have stated clearly that satire was not specifically mentioned in that discussion, but that its conclusions apply." That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works at all. There is no consensus for content that was never even discussed. Now you are also repeatedly refusing to engage in any discussion about the term "satire" that you are trying to insert as an additional genre on the article's talk page. If you think your behavior is appropriate, feel free to take this to a noticeboard, and I'll be happy to argue for a WP:BOOMERANG. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You have the deciding vote on the Charlie's Angels talkpage!
@Wallyfromdilbert: Hello mate, I don't know if you were following the latest discussions on the Charlie's Angels talkpage earlier but we've essentially narrowed it down to a basic premise. All is agreed on the main article 'Box Office' section updates, and we are between two different options for wording to use in the lead. One has been written by myself, the other by KyleJoan. He disagrees with mine in the use of the word 'widely' in describing the numbers of sources that list the film as one of the big box office failures of 2019 (which although I found more sources to alleviate his concern about 'widely' only descrbing two sources, I would still be happy to edit that wording into just "USA Today and Variety" or even one of them in describing them noting it as one of the big bombs of 2019 for the lead), while I disagree with the sentence beginning with 'with a 57 million gross..." in his version as it deviates too far from the wording and point of the source where it outright lists the biggest box office 'bombs' of the year (which we've tailored to 'disappointments' since) and in this version you wouldnt even know that it was a list/ranking. However, Armegon, who was the user in the debate, supports BOTH versions, thus with each account having 2 for and 1 against, you supporting one version outright would lead to a 3/4 ruling in it's favour which would yield a consensus and be the one we would use. If you object to both but would take one if it was tweaked a little bit, then we'll tweak that one and post it. If you object outright to both, we are going to be going to an RfC. That's what we've decided, so we await your verdict to decide on the next crucial step we take in the process! Best, Davefelmer (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
EDIT: Just to be clear by the way as the two proposed options are somewhat scattered amidst all the discussion on the page:
My option goes as follows: "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics. Following a poor opening it was deemed a financial disappointment and it has been widely ranked (or we can use 'and it was ranked by USA Today and Variety') as one of the biggest box-office disappointments of 2019. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48-55 million." This way we address your previous concerns about using the terms 'bomb' and 'failure' as well as sounding more encyclopedic, and it also flows better.
KyleJoan's version goes as follows: "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. With a $57-million gross at the end of the year, the film was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment. It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million." I know I can't speak for him but I presume like me that he too would be willing to make some minor tweaks to it if it were proposed.
Hi, Davefelmer. I just wanted to note quickly that WP:CONSENSUS is not about voting but about discussion and arguments. I will provide a response regarding the content above on the article's talk page to avoid fracturing the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2020 (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 ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was not aware I had made 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on that article. I obviously lost track, and thought this had been a more long-term dispute with an editor who was refusing to engage in any discussion on the talk page. I will do a better job at tracking which pages I have made reversions on, and I would like to request to be unblocked to participate in several talk page discussions that are ongoing. If I am unblocked, I will voluntarily refrain from making any edits to non-discussion pages for the duration of the original block. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Deepfriedokra: While I can just about see that someone could accidentally get to 4RR in 24 hours (although if you're that deep into a conflict, you should be watching yourself carefully), the fact that they reached five reverts in under 24 hours makes me unconvinced. As they were also recently edit-warring at Gravity (2013 film) (which the original report was about), personally I would be inclined not to unblock. Number5708:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Please assist me. We once had a disagreement over the Owen Benjamin page. I apologised and did remove my post. However, I need assistance as Owen's page has lost protection somehow and is now being vandalised.
Hi, TruthBuster21223. I'm assuming your talking about this revert you made. I think that was a good revert, although the IP's edit was not vandalism. Since it was only one change, I don't think it too much to worry about right now. I can always help you request page protection if other edits are made to the page and it becomes too much for simply reverting them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: Jupiter Ascending
I noticed you reverted my edit on Jupiter Ascending (which was admittedly erroneously marked as "minor", still getting the hang of wiki) because it "was not supported by sources".
Jupiter Ascending got unarguably negative reviews. Suburbicon has a just-higher score on Rotten Tomatoes and on Metacritic, yet its introduction says it got "generally negative reviews". Jupiter Ascending's page is the only one I have seen -- and I have looked at many -- to get such low scores yet be marked as having "mixed" reception. So either we ought to change it to "negative", or change the dozens or even hundreds of film articles with better reviews to say "mixed reception".
Thejosephfiles, I actually looked at Suburbicon and changed the lead sentence to more accurately reflect the cited source. That film also has a Metacritic rating of "mixed or average" so I changed that in the lead as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you again for the suggestion! It was a mistake on my part to make the initial RfC narrowed to only a "footnote", but it was my first RfC and so I expected that it would be able to be improved. I appreciate your help with it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Blinken
Hello,
I can show you numerous articles from secretaries such as Pompeo that we have added that they are the nominee for Secretaries, not to mention that every other appointee Joe Biden has announced has the fact that they are nominee in their infobox. This is how wikipedia has done it and for the sake of uniformity I think it should stay. Sneakycrown (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Sneakycrown, and thank you for bringing up this issue. Do you know if there has been any discussion about this at any point? This specific article was brought to the BLP noticeboard, and I am not exactly seeing the need for putting the information in the infobox before a person has been nominated, especially when that information falsely states that the person is the current nominee, which is not accurate. If you go to the BLPN, I explain a little more about my reasoning, and it would be helpful to get your response and examples there where the discussion can be seen by other potentially interested editors as well. Thanks again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I'll go to BLP as well, but this has been a back and forth on numerous pages concerning Biden and it justs eems to be a big mess. If anything, here's hoping this transition makes the community come out with set guidelines for this stuff. In looking back at the Trump admin it was a trainwreck there too with Tillerson, some saying he should and adding, others removing it. Just like Blinken. Sneakycrown (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sneakycrown, I definitely agree that having some guidance or even at least a centralized discussion to point back to would be helpful. I suggested the BLPN thread since that is the discussion I am aware of, but if there is a better place to discuss this, please just let me know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
PLEASE, don't edit war about it. Bring your concerns up in an RFC at the appropriate talkpage & bring your argument forward there, as to why you thing the age-old practice should be changed. Just DON'T EDIT WAR over it. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, are you are talking about hiding clearly incorrect information from a BLP that was raised at the BLPN? Obviously we cannot list someone as a "nominee" when they have not been nominated yet. If you say that somehow using the infobox for another phrase such as "designee" is an "age-old practice", then maybe you should contribute to that ongoing thread on the BLPN that I have commented on already and also help to clarify the infobox template. Also, just so you know, RfCs are generally only appropriate after discussion has taken place. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Now, you're being disruptive. AGAIN, get a consensus for a change, if you disagree with the age-old practices in these articles. At the very least, if you're going to persist in removing such info from Blinken's bio, then remove the info at all such Biden nominee bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Multiple other editors have disagreed with you. You are the sole person removing content that was not even added by me, and instead restoring incorrect information to a BLP infobox. This article was brought up to BLPN for this exact issue, where at least four editors have advised against including the infobox at all. You are now trying to add incorrect information to the infobox as well, and yet you still have left no comments at BLPN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, I am here as a volunteer for the project and not obligated to follow your perspective. Use the BLPN thread or article's talk page to discuss your concerns, and stop restoring incorrect information to BLPs. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Since you were unwilling to make the effort. I went ahead & made such changes to the other bios articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping the project and commenting on the BLPN thread. Maybe with a little more discussion there, we can edit the infobox template to clarify all this for the future. Are you aware of any other discussions about this in the past that may be relevant? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies
I would just like to apologize if I came off as rude at any point in the debate on infoboxes for BLP, it wasn't my intention, it's just been a headache and a half on all these pages considering what we came to the conclusion on that they should be added. As I said though, it wasn't my intent to come off as rude or snarky and if I did, I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakycrown (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sneakycrown, no apologies necessary at all. I don't think you have been rude in any way, and I certainly apologize if I gave that impression or have been rude myself. You probably have stronger feelings than I do about this since I just came to it through the BLPN, but I think you have been very helpful with trying to reach a solution to the issue and have left good comments on the BLPN. Hopefully we can add some clarification to the infobox template soon so that there is some type of guideline to point to and avoid this issue in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You left a note on my "talk" page, indicating destructive edits; however I'm merely removing destructive additions. The articles are not sourced, as noted they were attached to one blogger's article that was then re-referenced by the other sources; this does not create additional sources - it only refers back to the first unsubstantiated source. Also as a WP:BLP these comments cause real harm to the page subject; and are being continued without evidence. Finally, you reference the talk section of the page, which includes many contributors agreeing that the content should be removed unless corroborated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
We do have to be careful with accusations of a crime against a living person, but that material is cited to two reliable sources and three editors on the article's talk page have disagreed with your removal. Given your knowledge of apparently non-public information and single-purpose editing regarding this issue, do you have a conflict of interest regarding the article subject? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not have COI with the subject; I know of him as an author - Wikipedia's policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. " thus this is not distructive editing; as it is a BLP the content must be removed until the matter is resolved as it is causing real harm to the subject while it is up. Additionally you state "the material is cited to two reliable sources" - this is not accurate; the only source was ThinkProgress blog, which is not considered a "reliable source", but a small activist organization. Additionally there was factually inaccurate information indicating "allegations that he forced a woman to have sex with him", when the article states " A woman told the organization he had pressured her into sex in 2013 even after she said multiple times that she did not want to sleep with him.". The article then goes on to state that the woman did NOT have sex with Rinzler. Content that states " Forced a woman to have sex with him" is considered rape; none of which is true or even alleged. This content is beyond "merely being informative" and is slanderous. It needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I do not see anywhere in the sources that Rinzler and the woman did not have sex. In fact, that is directly contradicted by both the Publishers Weekly and Think Progress sources: "allegations that he forced a woman to have sex with him" and "A woman told the organization he had pressured her into sex in 2013". You clearly are not engaging in an honest discussion by making up facts. Also, Think Progress is generally considered either a WP:NEWSBLOG or a WP:NEWSORG, which means that it would be generally reliable for attributed statements per WP:RSP, which is why I suggested attributing the information in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello.
My name is Walt Johanson. I am a retired Canadian theologian. In my spare time -- as during my working career -- I write articles on cultural issues particularly those with religious overtones. I wrote the article, Mark Donnelly which you apparently redacted. I write to you requesting un-redaction of the Mark Donnelly article. The following is my justification for my request.
One of my interests is Mark Donnelly. He is a living Canadian cultural icon with religious connections that inform his cultural activities, particularly his love of Canada and hockey. As a person, he is of interest to me because I have an undergraduate degree minor, "Religion and Culture". I studied this at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Regarding the Wikipedia article "Mark Donnelly", I'd like to inform you that I am not Mark Donnelly nor am I affiliated with him, contrary to what some observers of the article have written. The article is not hubris by Donnelly.
Would you be so kind as to reinstate the Wikipedia article I wrote about Mark Donnelly as it was posted prior to yesterday, December 4, 2020.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Walt Johanson
Lexbahn (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I removed unsourced promotional material from that article, and it would not be appropriate to add it back. Considering you have made no other edits except to that page, it may be good for you to become better acquainted with our policies here. I am going to leave a welcome message on your talk page that has some additional information and helpful links. Please take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Carlos Maza
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit to the Maza BLP: [3]. And, for some reason, you reverted my American YouTubers Category edit? Would you mind explaining your reverts more in-depth for me? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I was just leaving a comment about the content you added on your talk page, and so please feel free to respond there. You should not be adding information and then citing it to a source that doesn't support it and even contradicts it. Removing the category was a mistake on my end, and I have restored that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
wallyfromdilbert, Hello. I'm sorry if you felt like I being disingenuous in my arguments. That was not my intention. I truly believed my edit was appropriate and non-contentious. I genuinely want to improve the article (especially the personal life section). Do you have any recommendations? Perhaps we can spend a little time working on the article together? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I appreciate your sentiments. Considering that several people are concerned about a lack of context for content being added, I think it would be beneficial to include that additional context from sources when adding information into the article, and certainly not to include only half of the information from a single sentence. If your content is reverted or you are not sure about it in the first place, then discussing it on the article's talk page is probably the best place because other interested editors can then be aware of the discussion. Feel free to ping me there if you would like my input as I sometimes miss talk page discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, don't worry, your nom was not that bad at all. WP:NJournals is really only used for academic journals, so don't feel bad about missing it. It's designed to make it easier for journals to pass the bar, as they rarely meet GNG, while at the same time not making it so easy that even bad (predatory) or rather obscure journals could get through. It absolutely was appropriate to withdraw the nom. AfD is a special part of WP and it may take a while to get the hang of it, but it is, of course, important to keep non-notable stuff out. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Randykitty, thank you for the advice! AfD seems to be one of the more complicated areas, and so I figured I would miss something. I don't quite understand some of the topic-specific notability standards, such as for academics and journals, and so I will try to avoid those areas and leave it to people with more experience. Thank you again! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
If you're interested in those areas, the thing to do is to follow AfDs in those fields and see how others handle these issues. And after you build up your expertise, you can do valuble work, because especially journal AfDs often have only very little participation, so new editors in this area are very welcome! --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Randykitty, I definitely need to follow more AfD threads to learn more. While I think I am getting a better grasp of GNG, it seems harder to learn about the more specific guidelines because they do not come up as often. I will probably need to just spend some time focusing on AfD since it's harder to pick up on those specifics while only occasionally looking through AfDs. Many of the people at AfD also seem so knowledgeably that it can be intimidating. Hopefully I will have some time in the next couple of months to get some more experience myself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
RE: Karen Barad
RE: "I was not able to find any support for the change in pronoun usage when searching online. Do you know if Barad has made a public comment about this or if there are any sources that refer to Barad using "they"? If there is an issue with available sources, then it may be preferable to change the article to use just Barad's last name throughout the article rather than any specific pronoun. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)"
TBH, at this point. You should be reported for edit warring & possible WP:OWN issues. This pig-headed behaviour on your part, is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was just leaving this message to say thank you for your feedback about my previous post. I'm new to wikipedia, and it was definitely a learning experience. Thank you for making this a comfortable, and enlightening community. I really appreciate the time you took to help me become a better user.
The two options favored in the discussion were "presumptive nominee" or similar wording, or removing the infobox completely. Only two people supported having "nominee" before Biden is inaugurated. I personally favor simply hiding the infobox until the nomination is official, but I was trying to compromise. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. So you read the RfC to support "presumptive nominee"? Personally, I read it as "no consensus", but I can see how it could be interpreted differently. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
AleatoryPonderings, I think it is no consensus between "presumptive nominee" or holding off on the infobox until after the inauguration when the nominations are made official, but there does seem to be a consensus against just "nominee". That was my interpretation, but do you see it differently? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I see a consensus against "nominee", but no consensus for any particular alternative to "nominee". So I don't think the RfC justifies changing "nominee" to anything else. I suppose changing it to "presumptive" or commenting out would be equally justified by the RfC. So it seems like we agree on interpreting the RfC.
The question is what edits the RfC justifies. In my view, the lack of consensus means there's no particular reason to change "nominee" to anything else. Ultimately, it seems like these will just inevitably go back and forth until the inauguration, since we don't have a consensus for any particular alternative … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wally! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do, especially in helping with bios and at BLPN. Your arguments are usually very compelling and I think the work you do there is invaluable. May you have a Merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate, and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Zaereth! That means a lot coming from someone I admire as much as you, and I thank you for your work on BLP as well. I have learned and will continue to learn a lot from you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notwally, for the period January to December 2020. 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.
