This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notwally, for the period January 2021 to December 2022. 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.
I am Pastor Troy's representative. I am working to position the content in a way that is not editorialized or citing gossip/uncredible/opinion sites. Using terms such as "homoophobic" are opinion based conclusions and understand that including the content on his page is warranted but should be positioned in a constructive and non-opinionated voice. It also does not need to be cited in multiple place on the page. Can we work together to do that? The first way I had it seemed to be in that voice, not sure what needed to be cited as it already was unless I broke the link.
Acalipeach, in my opinion, your edits have been disruptive and not constructive at all. All you try to do is to remove the crap Paster Troy did. The metarial stated at his page is sourced enough so no need to bluntly remove it nor state it as you did (pretty much delete it all). And no his homophobic rant was not an opinion.Garnhami (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Acalipeach, you should review the information I just posted to your information about conflicts of interest and follow those procedures. You should not be removing sourced content from articles simply because you disagree with it. The most appropriate place to discuss the issue further would be on the article's talk page: Talk:Pastor Troy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wallyfrodillbert I appreciate your response. Your commentary has the potential to validate that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it relies on emotional and opinionated writers. You seem to be focused on creating a specific narrative and not about constructive, valid writing skills that articulate in a way for readers to decide for themsleves how they should percieve/digest a profile/story. Your mention of "the crap that he has done" demonstrates that either Wikipedia is just another source of "journalism" that relies on writers that reflect the fake, destructive culture of today or you have slipped through their vetting cracks (if they actually vet). I was asking for your suggestions on how to create an unopinionated view point, keeping the context of the history, but instead you went down an emotional wormhole. You can have it. Hopefully, if Wikipedia is really trying to create a modality/source of valid information, they will either pick up on the type of "writer" you are or someone will report it...I, do not have the time or inclination to follow up on this, I understand that the truth always prevails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Considering you claim to be "Pastor Troy's representative", you need to follow the policies at WP:COI, about which I also left a comment on your talk page. You should probably also read the comments to which you are responding more carefully, considering I never mentioned "crap that he has done". Regardless, you should not be editing that article to repeatedly remove sourced content especially when your removals have been reverted by multiple other editors. I would suggest you follow the instructions for individuals with conflicts of interest and then take your concerns to the article's talk page to see what other interested editors have to say: Talk:Pastor Troy. Please also read WP:NPA and avoid my talk page in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
So I should then make a separate Wikipedia page called "List of rebuttals of Last Week Tonight by John Oliver" and place this content over there and then link this new Wikipedia page to [Week Tonight with John Oliver] , that will sort your issues out.
Good Day,
Ranamode (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Can one copy and paste tables from one place to another?
wallyfromdilbert I'll like to clear out some misconceptions. This is not original research as I took the information mentioned in the video of Sham Sharma and added sources based on the assumption that other editors will say that the statements by Sham Sharma were inaccurate. On other words, the statements were from a source mentioning John Oliver's show directly and the extra citations were as back-up. I didn't realise this would be confused as original research. The best thing to do would be to remove the extra citations. On the other hand, how is it undue? If you are talking about this article only to mention John Oliver's arguments then it's undue, othrwise it should be fair to state opposing views. Ranamode (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ranamode, WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Self-published videos released by a person on Youtube are not reliable sources (see WP:RSPYT), and the independent sources you added do not mention Last Week Tonight. If reliable sources discuss Last Week Tonight to criticize the segment, then those would be appropriate to add. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
What was the point of taking me through a wild goose chase when you could have just shown me WP:RSPYT! Your other points were debatable and could be countered with Wikipedia policy. Ranamode (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I can add references to supporting literature ... fair enough. But how do you feel it is irrelevant to go beyond Australian instances for context and also describe very similar cases elsewhere that happened even earlier for names in use much longer? I want to understand. Is there a middle ground we can work on? Betterkeks (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Betterkeks, there are certainly many examples of similar cases of name changes elsewhere in the world, but the article in question is about Coon cheese. I would not object to including the first part of the sentence you added, "Internationally, products have been rebranded for similar reasons" (or incorporating that into the previous sentence about other Australian companies). However, I don't think the details about a specific case in Germany or one in Hungary are particularly relevant. If you add sources that discuss some connection between actions taken in Germany or Hungary and those in Australia, that would be more relevant because we could simply state the connection made by those sources. If you want to continue this discussion, we should head over to the article's talk page so that other interested editors can be aware of the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Queen's Gambit (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.
I won’t edit it again so revert back if you will and I agree I haven’t cited it properly, but I wasn’t making that up. He just interviewed on that show so I’m not the one saying he’s a former* civil rights activist. Cheers to you, and be well Junco404 (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Junco404, I already left a message on your talk page about this, and so free to respond there to keep the conversation in one place. We can also move the discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can be aware of it. Let me know if you need any help. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Sad
Bored and decided to hinder someone's work? Stop making disruptive changes on the page that is in the process of an expansion. ภץאคгöร21:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Greensky75, I appreciate you leaving this message to me, but you have to actually cite a source that says Maza was fired. You cannot simply assume that, especially if the source does not even mention Maza. That is a form of original research. Also, lay-offs and other workforce reductions would not the same as being fired. If you would like to discuss the article further, we should move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other people are aware of the discussion: Talk:Carlos Maza. If you need any help, please let me know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Thanks, Schazjmd! That means a lot because that was a headache! Hopefully the article is more manageable now, and at least it doesn't have the constant back-and-forth arguments in it anymore. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Possible Page Protection for Titanic (1997 film)
Hi Wallyfromdilbert. Since Jienum was blocked for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule on the article, Titanic (1997 film), I was considering the idea of protecting the page, Titanic (1997 film) so that Jienum would not engage in any more edit warring and would not violate the three-revert rule. What do you think of that? Hayleez(talk)19:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough disruption to the page to warrant requesting page protection. You can learn more about the page protection policy here: WP:PP. I also don't think the editor is going to return and continue with the same edits, but if they did, they could simply be blocked again or blocked from editing that particular page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit?
I noticed that you reverted my edit to Bobby Fischer. My edit was constructive. Please do not revert my edit again.
Dro5soz (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Removing sourced content along with half of a link is obviously not constructive. Doing it a second time looks like intentional vandalism. If you have a reason to remove the information you are blanking from pages, then you need to explain them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
False accusations
Please do not falsley accuse me of vandalism. If you bothered to actually read Wikipidea's Manual of Style[1], you would know A Quiet Place Part II is a 2020 film––not a 2021 film. Please do not make this edit again, or I will report you. Please refer to the talk page to notice a majority fo people support the 2020 status. Also, refer to films such as Fantasia 2000, Thoroughbreds, Minari, Concrete Cowboy... the list goes on. You always put the year it was first shown, even if it was at a film festival. Just like IMDb does.
ScottSullivan1, no one has accused you of vandalism from what I can see, unlike your incorrect hidden note that you put into the article about supposed "vandalism" here. I reverted you here because you edit is contrary to all the sources about the film. After that, another account, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was subsequently reverted by ClueBot for restoring your same edit [2]. Are you claiming to operate both of those accounts? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
ScottSullivan1 (talk) He seemingly has a history of this sort of conduct with reverting edits for no real reason. Is there a way we can file a complaint against him in Wikipedia?
I'm not sure what relevance you think an opinion article in Slate has, but the content you are removing is cited to an article in The New York Times, and there are a dozen citations from major publications also on the talk page in the prior discussion about this. Please continue that discussion on the talk page, rather than starting new threads or trying to move the discussion to my user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The article is from Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner for his work on international trade). The NYT article is about a new Netflix series. At most, Robert Reich is a quasi-Ha Joon-Chang, but without any degrees, or academic work. BasedMisesMont Pelerin22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Wallyfromdilbert, I am Jim's Sheridan's daughter and I am only adding a missing name from my full name. Instead Clodagh Cherie Sheridan, I added my full name Ameerah Clodagh Cherie Sheridan,
Many Thanks for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mano2035 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Mano2035, your edit is not only adding a missing name, but makes several changes to the article [3]. However, all information on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources, and the names of non-notable family members needs to be widely published by reliable sources per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I have removed the content about Sheridan's children entirely because it was sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source for information. If you are Mr. Sheridan's daughter, then you probably should not be editing his page at all because you have a conflict of interest, which I left more information about on your talk page. If you want to talk page the article's content more, then we should do that on its talk page so that other editors are aware: Talk:Jim Sheridan. If you need any help, you can ask me or post a question to Wikipedia:Teahouse. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Speckle11b, the content you are adding is not "accurately cited", and you need to stop restoring your promotional material, which you are citing to blogs, opinion articles, and the article subject himself. You are also adding content that is not supported by the sources you are citing for it at all. You need to be citing content to reliable sources that directly support the content you are adding. You also need to disclose if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, especially sine you have made no edits to any other articles since your account was created. Also, please follow the guidelines at WP:TPG so that you can properly sign and indent your comments, and you should not be signing comments with my name as you did here. If you want to discuss the article content more, we should do so at Talk:Vonny Sweetland, rather than my personal user page, as more editors will be aware of the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to accurately "TAG" you on the talk page. That's why I am messaging you here.
I think we've reached a consensus on the page. I left your edits, but added more verbiage/citations around the subjects writing and appearance work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckle11b (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Speckle11b, you need to sign and indent your comments per WP:TPG. You also need to disclose your conflict of interest and stop editing the page as per the information left by another editor on your talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
See also link at James Barry
Hello Wallyfromdilbert, I didn't understand this revert of yours at James Barry (surgeon), where you said, removing labeling as female on your removal of the link to the article List of female American Civil War soldiers from the #See also section. I added this link, because I thought it would be relevant and interesting to readers of James Barry (surgeon), in the same way that the previously existing link to Sarah Emma Edmonds is, and also since Edmonds is just one of many women who fought in the American Civil War, while the list article provides many such examples. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Please review the article's talk page if you do not understand why labeling Barry as a "female American Civil War soldier" is inappropriate. It is the same reason why pronouns and gender-based categories are not used on the article's page. If you want to discuss article content further, we should be doing so on the article's talk page where other interested editors can be aware of the discussion. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Nobody has labeled Barry as a "female American Civil War soldier", least of all a related link in the See-also section. See MOS:SEEALSO for a discussion of the purpose of the See also section in articles. I was relying on this point of it:
The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
You'll notice there's nothing in the MOS about labeling, or categorizing the main subject of an article as "belonging" in any way, to the topics named in the See also links. I do agree with you that article content should only be discussed on article Talk pages, which is why I brought this here, since I suspected that your revert had nothing to do with article content; your reply has now convinced me of it. Don't worry, I won't revert you, since you seem to feel strongly about it, and I don't. I'm fine with List of female American Civil War soldiers not being listed there, although to be consistent, you really should remove Sarah Emma Edmonds as well. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
you just emailed me about a change I made on benjamin lemaire Wikipedia page
everything I modified is on the references that actually are on the list of wikipedia sources for this page, if it worked whis previous modifications, why not with theses ones ?
Benjamin lemaire new name is benjamin Charles, as he changed his name officily after his justice issues : https://ibb.co/374317b
I mantionned my sources fort all the article about sexual arrassement with young boys under 15 (even 13yo for one of them), he went to prison for that, about 30 000 pedoporgraphie pictures and 1000videos have been found on his computer (sources : the ones that already are in wikipedia sources for this page)
He (because we really think he wrote this wikipedia page by himself) only talk about 1 young man who consented to have sex with him. that's obviously false and people have the right to know the true about him.
I can't support him to have a promotional wikipedia page to do business knowing everything he did
here is everything you have to know, from famous french magazines, check this out with google translate if nobody speack french around you and you'll understand :
I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but the content about the name change would need to be sourced to independent reliable sources. As for the content about the sexual assault indictment and conviction, that needs to be appropriately worded with WP:NPOV language and not go into excessive details that are WP:UNDUE and could be potential WP:BLP violations. If you want to discuss the article's content further, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Benjamin Lemaire, or participate in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard, WP:BLPN#Benjamin Lemaire, so that other editors are aware of the conversation and not just me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Jim Sheridan Update
Jim Sheridan has directed a new Documentary called Murder in the Cottage which is about the Murder of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.227.246 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Tom Devine
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your clean-up of the article Tom Devine, order has returned from chaos, I must admit, I didn't know where to start with the article, so glad you and other editors are so dedicated. Awesome Textualism (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, it's me, Ryanisgreat4444 and I need your help! On the page 12 Years a Slave, should it say "licence" or "license"? Thanks. - Ryanisgreat4444
Hi, Ryanisgreat4444. That film is both a British and American film, but it looks like it uses American English more already. I think it would be fine to change "licence" to the American English version. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Ryanisgreat4444, I think that should probably be changed to the American English "summarized". Also, just so you know, if you are going through articles to make them consistent, you can also place a {{Use American English}} (or other appropriate English variant) at the top of the article in the "source editing" view. You can read more about those template tags at: Template:Use American English. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Over many months, between my talk page, talk pages of articles, edit summaries and the user's talk page, I have tried every way possible to get through to User:Mr. Doggy Dog about their repeated insistence on adding redundant/original research information to Trolls (film), without involving administrative measures. I have a feeling judging by their typically very immature/bad grammar on their edits in most articles it's a very young user, hence my being hesitant to involve admins, but thank you for helping me with this. I was trying to be patient but beginning to feel a little helpless there. If you go back through the article you'll notice this goes on since May.
EEBuchanan (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
No worries. The number of adjectives was getting pretty excessive in the plot and cast sections. I guess at least its not some of the more disruptive editing that has happened to that article over the past few years. I think Mr. Doggy Dog is probably well-intentioned with their edits, and hopefully having another editor or two discuss the problems with some of their edits will help them realize where they were going wrong. Thank you for your efforts taking the time to carefully explain the issues on their talk page. Hopefully they will take more consideration of your thoughtful explanations. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Went back and checked, this thing about Mr. Doggy Dog adding extra info about Creek in summary and in cast description has gone back since april. It's the same thing, either adding "Coward, fraud, and traitor" in both places or saying "Broke Poppy's heart and destroyed her happiness", or "his captivity in jewel was a trap" in those places, or all three of those things. They just started trying to do it again this afternoon and I reverted it but I'm afraid I'm going to get called "edit warring" if I keep having to do this, though I wait several hours. Talked to them again. Not sure if at this point they should be reported but I hate to do that.
EEBuchanan (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
EEBuchanan, unfortunately, there may not be much that can be done besides just reverting it and not worrying to much about it. They don't seem to be making these edits that frequently or at a level that would be considered disruptive enough for an administrator to take action, but there may be concerns about WP:NOTTHERE considering the other messages on their talk page about their editing behavior and the fact that they do not appear to ever respond to these messages or talk page discussions about their edits. Maybe a partial block from that article would at least get them to engage in some sort of discussion about their changes. Looking briefly through the article's history, it doesn't look like you have ever reverted more than one edit in a day, and I don't think anyone would be able to take legitimate issue with your occasional reverts of that user's additions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, KyleJoan, I am doing well. How have you been the past year? I hope you and yours made it through the pandemic fine. I appreciate your invitation, but I am not sure if I have ability to offer much to that discussion because of my lack of experience with featured articles. I appreciate the information and links you provided above, as I do want to eventually be able to help with article gradings/ratings, and reading through the others' comments about the Bale article nomination was also helpful. If I have a little extra time this week, I will try to get more acquainted with the process and leave a comment. From a quick read of the article, it does seem very comprehensive and well-written, and so thank you for all your efforts there. Also, thank you for adding the additional content sources to the Birds of Prey article! Please take care and don't hesitate to reach out. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, also, thank you for the other articles you have helped promote to good article status as well. I have actually recently read several of the articles you have listed on your user page (including Pugh, Olsen, Madden, and Fresh Off the Boat), and it makes sense why they were so well-written and helpful to understanding the topics. I was thinking of watching Fresh Off the Boat after reading the article on it (after being brought there by the Jay Chandrasekhar article). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I've been relatively well, given the circumstances. It's nice to hear that you are too. Thank you for the incredibly kind words and wishes! The articles you listed were such delights to edit. Fresh Off the Boat is a great show! It's easily up there with the great family sitcoms. And the timing of Pugh and Madden's articles becoming GAs couldn't have been better since they're about to become Marvel Cinematic Universe staples. All of that aside, should you have the time to comment on the FAC later, please know that there is no obligation to support or oppose the nomination. General thoughts or suggestions are more than sufficient. I appreciate your consideration and hope you continue to take care as well! It's a pleasure to be a user alongside you. KyleJoantalk18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
An allegation of sexual abuse is obviously an accusation of a crime. Feel free to open a thread on the article's talk page to discuss whether the content should be included. There is also a link to the prior BLP noticeboard discussion there. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not. You are mistaken. SafeSport rules are not criminal laws. They involve an entirely different standard of proof, as well. And entirely different penalties. You are confusing a breach of an organization's rules, which is a civil matter, with a breach of the criminal law, and subjecting wp text to the test made for what is clearly and unambiguously criminal law. You can be in breach of SafeSports rules, and thereby subject to suspension from the sports governed by the SafeSport rules, without being at all guilty of a crime. That's confusing to the uninformed, I will grant you, but upon being informed one need merely take a look at the SafeSport rules and criminal law to understand it. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no "civil matter" about sexual assault that is not an accusation of criminal conduct. The WP:BLPCRIME wording also is clear that the policy applies to any implication of criminal conduct: "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." Please take any further discussion about the article to the article's talk page, rather than posting here on my user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that directly, with your next edit, after we disagreed on this page (above, and in my explanations that you deleted) you appeared at a page I had just edited, unrelated, and deleted entries I had made.
19:18, 8 July 2021 diff hist −596 Robb Paller Remove content sourced solely to New York Post WP:RSP + add better source needed tag
19:13, 8 July 2021 diff hist +647 User talk:Wallyfromdilbert →Rich Fellers: r
Given our disagreement, and your deletion of my explanations, and the immediate following of your expression of disagreement with me with your deletion of my most-recent editing, at another wholly unrelated page - I was wondering, did you happen to alight at that page by chance? Or did you follow me to it, in the wake of our disagreement? Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Given your bizarre claims above, I did look through your IP's brief editing history, and I also read a few of the short articles out of interest. Looking at the article history, I didn't remove any content related to your IP, although you did add a citation incorrectly in your edit [4]. Also, you don't have some type of ownership over pages, and certainly not if you are talking about content in a BLP sourced to unreliable sources. You should probably actually read WP:HOUNDING before making those types of accusations, and if you have some sort of concern about someone following your edits when your IP doesn't have any edits made before today, then I guess you should make an account. If you want to disagree with one of my edits, then bring it up on the relevant article's talk page. If you want to make more accusations, then take it to ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. I'm not interested in having these discussions with you here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
False Claim of Disruptive edits
How is pointing out that films and books are defined as having titles and not names per se "disruptive"? You don't even make sense . Judging from this page you seem to have a history of making baseless claims against editors. How about we get you banned from editing as you obviously can not act in good faith? (Sellpink (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC))
You are making repeated changes contrary to the discussion on talk pages, and are also now apparently using IPs to continue your behavior. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
What are you doing
What are you doing? Half the stuff he edited was spelt incorrectly and the wrong MOS. Other users have reverted his edits here: [5][6] It wasn't just me. The English in this sentence is poor: "While the prosecution conceded that Spencer was who had opened fire on the officers". He had also spelt the word "disputed" wrong in another edit. Inexpiable (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Inexpiable, then you should fix those few things, rather than reverting their changes wholesale, especially when your reversions reintroduce incorrect grammar or other mistakes. For example, the word "pastor's" you restored here is incorrect and should be "pastors" as the IP had fixed it. They also made more than a few changes to conform with the MOS that you undid, such as not capitalizing "president". Automatically reverting good faith edits as "non-constructive", especially when restoring incorrect grammar or material contrary to the MOS is not helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, my bad. But I tend to look over an IP's edit history and when it has a lot of reverts from other users already, which his did, I assumed bad intentions. You even reverted one of his edits. But I will check each edit more closely next time, but my intentions were only to revert poorly worded content. I standby some of the stuff he added was not helpful though, other users have thought the same based on his edit history of reverts. Inexpiable (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Inexpiable, as per the policy as WP:AGF, you should not simply "assume bad intentions". That's what led to you repeatedly reintroducing incorrect grammar and formatting. I think the IP's edits seemed pretty clearly in good faith as most of their changes were beneficial. Thanks for being more careful in the future. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
(Wow. That sounds passive-aggressive. :-/ ) Just wanted to thank you for reverting this revert I did--I had mostly gone for the wholesale revert because I had thought pretty recent consensus was more firmly against the Palvin inclusion (I had known it was mentioned in sources but I probably hadn't noticed an uptick to the point of it being worth including because I don't look through Sprouse coverage as much as I used to); in retrospect, I wonder if I also was mentally conflating similar edits (but with firmer discussed-more-than-once-in-talk consensus against them) to Cole Sprouse's article... If removing the Palvin information had not been part of my rationale I probably would have just let the section title change go and just cleaned up the line breaks. Hrm. So in short, thanks for the revert. :P - Purplewowies (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Purplewowies, I think you are correct that the information about Palvin has been taken out of the article in the past, and I may have even done it myself, at least from the infobox. If I hadn't had some time to go look through new sources yesterday, I wouldn't have touched your edit. Your edit summary was also very helpful because I was able to understand why you have removed the information. I also removed one of the line breaks in that section because of your comment, since it does look better without so many short paragraphs (I wouldn't be opposed to separating information out of the personal life section though if you think that would be useful or preferred the old section header). I think this type of collaboration is what makes Wikipedia great. Thanks for your edits and for your comment above! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Kristin Cavallari edits
I really don't appreciate you ignoring my edits and acting like you have a monopoly over anyone's Wikipedia articles. My changes were all valid and for the last time I DON'T WORK FOR HER NOR DO I HAVE ANY AFFILIATION WITH HER I JUST WANTED TO EDIT ALL THE HILLS CASTMEMBERS' PAGES ON HERE!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You are adding promotional material to the lead, and restoring material that is not in the sources you cited. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page, rather than my user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wally, I just wanted to say that it seems as though you have a tendency to label edits from users that you disagree with as being COI's or disruptive edits, and this creates an unnecessarily antagonistic editing environment. It is bad faith to label editors who make small good faith edits as automatically suspected to be editing with a conflict of interest, and just because you disagree with an edit does not mean that it is disruptive. You seem to be abusing these warnings and employing them improperly, and I would suggest that you do better at creating a welcoming environment here at Wikipedia. Cheers! Chukulem (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The fact that your editing history is incredibly similar the the frequent sockpuppets created by Sam Sloan makes me wonder whether I should have opened a sockpuppet investigation rather than merely informing you of the WP:COI policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I genuinely find that a hilarious conclusion to reach based on my contributions history. I've made probably around 75 edits solely on including the period in rapper Anderson .Paak's name, the majority of my edits have to do with fixing the vocal range of songs, and my last couple edits are about identifying the proper mascot for POG. It should be clearly evident that I am not a 77 year old chess professional, but you can have at 'er with opening a sockpuppet investigation against me. Do you have any COI's that you would like to declare? Also from what I can see it doesn't seem like Sam Sloan has been accused of sockpuppetry since his 2008 indefinite block but rather supporters/cronies/whoever, but tbh that's neither here nor there. Anyways, nope I've nary a conflict of interest here, I'm just some rando who wanted to make the article more clear and informative. Chukulem (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Orangemike, thanks for pointing that out! That is my mistake. I must have gotten the sources mixed up when reviewing them. That source also gives his former spouse's name, and so I am going to add those both back in. Please let me know if I made any other mistakes. Thanks again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yikes
Many thanks for the fix. That is what I get for editing in haste before heading over to a friends for dinner. Your cleanup is much appreciated. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk02:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
No worries! It was a minor change, but you had left a helpful explanation in your edit summary, and so I wanted to do the same (including for the IP editor if they came back and wondered why their change was undone). I have definitely learned the value of a good edit summary while editing here. Thanks for all the work you do here, too. All the best. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Your not wrong but I'm trying to strike a balance, and all that praise in the intro without even the suggestion of any criticism does not feel quite right either.
I made a smaller edit based on what had already long been in the article and I thought was about as well supported by the sources as the praise (can we really make a generalisation about the action being good, the Funhouse scene was underwhelming) but I suppose in the long run I will have to take a shot at rewriting and expanding the Critical response section, because I do believe there are sources to support some minor criticisms. The good bits were great but I don't think the whole thing came together and I recall reviews having plenty of quibbles even if overall their reviews were positive. (I really did read a whole lot of reviews in attempt to verify claims that McGregor had been praised for his performance and it just wasn't a generalisation that held up.) -- 109.78.200.220 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
While expanding the critical response section probably would be helpful, going through individual reviews to determine what you think represents a critical consensus is a form of original research called WP:SYNTH. As WP:FILMLEAD says, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews" (which was added after the discussion here). That means that any summary of the critical reception added to the lead needs to be based on sources that summarize the critical reception themselves, or else be widely supported by many if not most of the reviews, and not just a few reviews that are found and included in the body. Minor criticisms are generally not going to be appropriate for the lead for that reason. As for this film, the Rotten Tomatoes summary of critical reviews directly praises the "loads of fast-paced action". Regarding the criticism for the screeplay that you added, there are two negative reviews, one mixed review, and one positive review in the article. Claiming that critics generally have criticized the screenplay is not accurate, which is why that type of SYNTH should be avoided and why it is not necessary or preferable to have a long list of "praise" and "criticism" in the lead. If you want to discuss the article's content further, let's move the conversation over to the article's talk page so that other editors who may be interested in the topic can be aware of it. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
MC Chris edit
Do you feel that the content that "wasn't appropriate for the lead," is more appropriate for "Early Life" when the subject was ~45 years old at the time? Just curious, because that is what you reverted it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjmajestic (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate at all, but definitely not in the lead. He didn't change his sexuality at age 45. Also, please do not mark your edits as minor when they make substantive changes, and also sign your comments per WP:TPG. If you want to discuss the article further, please do so on the article's talk page so that other interested editors can be aware of the conversation, rather than here on my user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Wizzito, I agree. Both accounts make mostly small edits to introduce incorrect information into film and television articles, while leaving the article title as the edit summary. I previously brought an account with somewhat similar editing to the attention of NinjaRobotPirate, although these IPs seem more focused on introducing incorrect information. I'm not sure if there is a SPI or LTA related to them, as this manner of vandalizing pages may be too common. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate you starting a talk page discussion, but I don't think it helps your argument to claim the content misrepresents the sources, as that is clearly not true. The issue is whether the content is WP:DUE. I also left a response on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Quarantine
Finishing my edit summary remark because I've had a long day and hit the Enter key before I was done by mistake: As the WP:LEAD paragraph it doesn't need citations or sources because I'm just paraphrasing a chunk of critical consensus that is well supported later in the article. I'm open to tweaking it but I think it's unfair to totally remove it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)02:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
That's fine, but you should add the sourced content to the article body first, because the current article says nothing about that later in it. Also, the lead should be a summary of what the critical consensus is, and not merely a summary of the individual reviews that an editor has chosen to include, or else that would be a type of original researched called WP:SYNTH. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, looking at the article now there are reviews missing that were there before. I'm too tired to look through the edit history to find them; maybe I'll revisit this issue later. But it's still not fair to say "nothing" because there is some mention, not least from a co-director of the original movie. It may not be enough, and that's fair, but "nothing" is simply not true. I can assure you, though, it will be entirely possible to prove this point with sufficient sources because it was a pretty widely echoed complaint about the movie at the time. "Not enough" is not the same thing as "none at all". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail)02:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Dune reception in the lead
We can speak on this in more depth on the article talk page if needed, but wanted to let you know I restored the previous phrasing in this edit. Ref #'s 116 and 117 are sources that estimate overall reception, and both focus on Villeneuve's adaptation and directorial style/execution. Based on those two sources alone, it should be enough to warrant this in the lead, but there's also source # 123 which explicitly states this as well. "Ambition" is a good phrase, but it doesn't encapsulate that its intended goals were achieved. You can be ambitious but fall well short, right? I also think it's important to note that these reviews are overwhelmingly focusing on the director and his take/spin on the novel, and the sources that do this secondary analysis for us (116 and 117) seem to agree. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking forward, though, I think we need better sources than 116 and 117. Those were based on early reviews when there were less than 40 accumulated on Rotten Tomatoes. Now that there are over 245 on RT, there have to be better options out there that have covered it in more depth by now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there,
I saw that this week you seemed to be having trouble with User:JesseRafe on the page for House of Representatives member Chris Rabb. If this is inaccurate please let me know as this was simply the assumption I got from the comments on the edit history. The user in question has been from my personal experience, extremely condescending(bordering on harassment), threatening, arrogant, partial, and editing in favor of personal political bias. If any of these things have been experienced by you to any degree please let me know which one(s). I have been looking into User:JesseRafe over the past few weeks and gathering trends that he continues to do as far as editing +deleting other users' contributions. The user essentially hides behind his long(year wise) account history as well as the fact that he allegedly does not work because he is able to monitor pages(and then quickly revert) a concerning amount. The fact that he does this makes it near impossible to contribute to a page that he decided to start reverting your changes on, as normal people such as myself do not have the amount of free time in personal life to constantly be going back and forth in a fast-paced kind of edit-warring. My account is new only because I forgot my password from my last one, but in total I have been editing Wikipedia for around 6-7 years. From the history on the page mentioned above as well as MANY other pages he latches onto, the user seems to be extremely toxic and quiet literally believes he owns/runs Wikipedia as a Monarch. He does not accept other peoples arguments if they are different from his own, even if what the other person is saying is supported by most of the consensus.
If you have had problems with this user, please let me know and perhaps we can discuss ways to attempt to report him as Wikipedia's merit is literally based on a consensus edited resource, and this user cares nothing for any sort of opposing consensus(in fact he will not even discuss compromises if there is allegedly two different viewpoints leading to skewed wording).
I am contacting you because I saw your name on the edit board as I mentioned, but also because the material in question is similar to what he harassed me and reverted all of my changes several weeks ago. The fact is in order to be neutral, we cannot state it as a joke page.... It of course says nowhere in the memo that it is satirical, so User:JesseRafe deciding that its satirical is not enough for the page to be built that way.
FoXXXlady, making accusations against other editors needs to be supported by links to their edits (i.e. "diffs"), or else that is a form of personal attack. Considering that you have only edited the Chris Rabb article once, have never contributed to the article's talk page, and have never interacted with the other editor on any other article, I would strongly suggest that you stop whatever campaign you are trying to start and instead find more productive ways to contribute to Wikipedia. The other editor has clearly not harassed you in any way whatsoever. Also, if you are continuing previous disputes with a new account, then you should disclose your prior account on your user page so that you cannot be accused of attempting to avoid scrutiny (see WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:CLEANSTART).
If you have concerns about the editing by JesseRafe, then you should take those concerns to WP:ANI with evidence for every accusation you make against them. Please note that I did not remove the content restored by JesseRafe on the Chris Rabb article, but only moved the word "satirical" to a subsequent sentence so that it did not imply that the memo itself described the proposal as satirical [7]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I restored that line to the infobox. Please feel to fix those types of mistakes yourself when you come across them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The lead for a film should only list its primary genre or subgenre (WP:FILMLEAD), and this should be based on what genres are most commonly used in the sources. Three genres in the lead seems excessive, especially when the ones you mention are rarely used in the sources, and none of the sources put them together in that way. Looking through the sources in the current article, "drama" seems to be by far the most commonly used genre, followed by "thriller" and then "crime". "Neo-noir" is not used in any of the sources, although "noir" is used in a few, including one that says a "noir-style drama" and the source that you cited above from NPR which describes it as a "modern-day noir" in prose and a "undernourished noir" in the headline, but lists its genre in the article as "Crime, Drama". "Mystery" is also used in a few sources, as well as "action". "Political thriller" is used in one source, and "political crime thriller" is used in one other. I think either "drama" or "thriller" is most appropriate, although I think "crime thriller" would also be appropriate. "Political thriller" seems fairly similar to "crime thriller", but "neo-noir" is definitely not used frequently or directly enough in the sources to be included in the lead. If you want to discuss this further, then please use the article's talk page so that other interested editors can be aware of the discussion, rather than on my user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Slappy and the Stinkers
An IP has tried to remove information from this article for months, and the other editor had no source for their edit themselves. Two weeks is a minimum film release in a theater, thus that explanation on why. Nate•(chatter)06:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how your response addresses the unsourced information you restored in your edit. The content added by the user Anonymous3525 in the production section is supported by the Variety source. I am going to remove the content about "mainly intended as a direct-to-video release" and the "contractual minimums" language until we can find a source for that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Stop removing short descriptions that have been added to articles. Your edits are disruptive and are senselessly removing the hard work of many editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you explain to me how changing terms from "name of the movie" to "title of the movie" is in any way "disruptive editing" when that 100% factually the term for it? If you attempt to block me from any page based on what appears to be an absurd contention, you can be assured I will not let that stand and I will get as many editors involved needed to fight this. I don't believe that you and you alone are the ultimate authority on what can be posted on this page. Are you actually saying that changing the term to the accurate term ('title') is somehow disruptive or against policy? Explain that please (Sellpink (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC))
You repeatedly changing content to your preferred term against the clear consensus of other editors is disruptive and needs to stop. There has already been a talk page discussion where you made baseless accusations against other editors as well: Talk:Child's Play (2019 film)#Edit warring. Logging out of Wikipedia and continuing to make those edits as an IP editor is also entirely inappropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
What policy am I breaking.. By changing it to the proper term. You can below all you like about disruptive editing. I'm sure I could find a bunch of editors who would contend the term is 'title.' I will continue to change the term even if I am banned under other accounts until someone other than you becomes involved. You're not the king of this page. I've requested moderation and if they agree with you, I will abide by that. (Sellpink (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC))
Your request for an administrator has already been answered. Apparently not reading what others have written is a recurring problem for you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
And clearly having a severe mental illness and no life to speak of beyond living for Wiki drama. I feel sad for you, you are so pathetic! (Sellpink (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC))
So if a certain group of users on a certain page deem that 'apple' is more appropriate than either 'title' or 'name' should that stand?? What is the sense in that and where in Wikipedia policy does it state that any users get to vote on which word should be used. I don't recall encyclopedias where users get to vote on their favorite term. It's not a contest. Now you are intentionally going out of your way to revert edits I made that you previously had no involvement in.That's essentially stalking and trying to create more edit wars. How do you want this resolved? Should we take it to WP:ANI? Let me know headcase! (Sellpink (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC))
I'll let your deeply offensive comments stay here until your ANI attempt boomerangs to a close. Just so you know, there is nothing wrong with having mental health problems. Far more problematic is thinking that is some type of insult. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
In reference to the revision you made in The Last Jedi
Most critics praise either Mark Hamill or Adam Driver's performance, or both, its not an unfounded claim nor is it based on audience reception. Feel free to check any review in the article (As I did) and you'll find it as well.
(talk page stalker)PhantomFelix21: That's a bold statement, considering the critical response section doesn't mention that anywhere in its summary. Two of the first three sources (Seitz and Roeper) say nothing about Hamill's performance for example, though Travers calls it the best of Hamill's career (which may or may not be saying much). Instead of telling others to keep combing for the support of the claim "most critics", you should instead bring the sources you're referring to over to Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. And keep in mind that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, meaning it should be in the body of the article long before it becomes a significant bullet point in the lead section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I already cited several sources in my response to @Gonein60. For further discussion, check "Adding Driver and Hamill's performance to the lead" in The Last Jedi's Talk Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomFelix21 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You need to actually read what people are saying to you, rather than ignoring them while repeatedly restoring content to the lead that is not in any way supported by the article's text. Also, you need to indent and sign your comments per WP:TPG or else that could be considered a form of disruptive editing. I have also already commented on the article's talk page, and so that is probably the best place to continue any discussion, as it will keep all the relevant comments together and allow other interested editors to be aware of the conversation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
W. Wilson Goode Jr.
I am W. Wilson Goode, Jr. - my first name is not, nor has it ever been. “Woodrow”. Not on any birth certificate, driver’s license, or passport. The same is true for my father. 108.52.186.240 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, as anyone could claim to be someone. If you can find sources that provide a different first name, I would be willing to help add them to the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
What is wrong with my edits in the article of Sandara Park, why you reverted it without explanation?—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 04:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
That must have been some kind of mistake when I was looking at her article earlier, as I don't even remember making any edits. Thanks for your message. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you please explain this revert? The only thing I see in WP:OVERSECTION that even comes close to being relevant to this case is The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text. The insertion of the subsection heading does not leave any single sentence sections, and I think the current section heading of 2020 is deceptive since (a) the recall is happening in 2021, and (b) it's separate from her activities in 2020. --Banana Republic (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
You quoted from the section on paragraph lengths and line breaks. However, the section actually about "headings and sections" says, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." If you think that something like "2020–2021" would be a more accurate section header, then that would probably be a helpful change, but creating a new section for a short, 4-sentence paragraph would be excessive. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I could go for a subsection heading "2020 and 2021 recall". The section heading does need to say "recall", and the recall effort started in 2020, so it would not be inaccurate to include 2020 with the 2021 recall. --Banana Republic (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for including the word "recall" in the section heading. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page and see if you can gain a consensus from other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You just revealed that your real opposition was inclusion of the word "recall" in the section heading, and WP:OVERSECTION was a red herring argument.
Since we are so close to the recall, let's just wait to see if the recall is successful. If it is, then it would become a major issue and putting it in the section heading would be unavoidable. If she can defeat the recall then it would be a small enough issue that would not need to be explicitly stated in the section heading.
I guess you just revealed your lack of WP:AGF. The fact that you were previously arguing for something that you now claim may "be a small enough issue that would not need to be explicitly stated in the section heading" is disturbing. Please review WP:NPOV and be more neutral with your editing in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify: I still think that the word "recall" should be in the heading, but at this point I don't feel strongly enough about it to build a consensus as your are forcing me to do. This will change if she is recalled.
Hello.
Please forgive me if this note is wrongly directed.
Regarding changes the Mark Donnelly article of December 5, 2020, please be advised that
1. Mark Donnelly was not the author of the article, I was under my other userid Lexbahn;
2. I have never worked for Mark Donnelly. I wrote the article because he was a Canadian icon.
I ask you to work for the restoration of the original article because the grounds for deleting most of the content is unfounded.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I enjoy using it and contributing to it.
Sincerely,
Walt Johanson
a.k.a. Lexbahn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.211.185 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You're unsourced promotional edits were inappropriate. Also, please do not use multiple accounts to edit articles as that would be WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. You could also add the name of your prior account (Lexbahn) to the user page of your new account (WaltJohanson) to make it clear that you are not trying to evade scrutiny. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Buzzfeed vs. The Hill
Regarding this revert and your edit summary, I'm wondering what your rationale is that The Hill is a blog and somehow less reliable than Buzzfeed? Per the perennial sources entry, Buzzfeed should be treated with caution after the layoffs, whereas The Hill has no such caveat. Perhaps we should look for a third source, since clearly the current text doesn't reflect the truth nor the source accurately - in fact, the Buzzfeed source has no mention of "bias" at all. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you look at The Hill link you added? It is clearly marked as part of their "blog" posts. Also, RSP does not say that Buzzfeed News "should be treated with caution". It actually says that "some editors recommend exercising more caution", while still finding consensus that it is "generally reliable". I also do not agree that the information in the article is inaccurate, and the cite in the lead is not actually needed since the lead is summarizing content from the main body. More context in the main body would probably be helpful, and would also allow for the lead to be more adequately summarized if needed. If you want to continue this conversation, let's move it to the article's talk page, where other interested editors can also be aware of it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I really don’t understand why this IP address will not stop policing my edits. I guess I’ll go ahead and explain myself anyway. The “name” parameter is optional in all infoboxes, so I remove it if I make another change to the article. May as well remove it if it doesn’t really do anything (when you enter the article title, which it defaults to when omitted). I remove flags from infoboxes per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:NOICONS. The latter MOS link is why I removed the flag from the Nazi German song and reverted this IP’s edit in which he undid my edit. Thrakkx (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
49.150.116.127(talk·contribs·WHOIS)/49.150.96.127(talk·contribs·WHOIS) Stop following Thrakkx and stop reverting their edits. You are clearly intending to harass them, and your behavior needs to stop now or you will be reported to an administrator.
Thrakkx, I don't see any problems with your edits, and don't feel like you have to explain yourself to me. You may want take this IP editor to WP:ANI. You should make sure to include all the IPs they have been harassing you with, and you will want to include links (WP:DIFF) to the articles and edits they have following you to and reverted you at. You can also use this tool to help find what pages you have both edited. If you need any help, feel free to ask. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Plot Synopsis Edit Reverts
Hi... please kindly stop reverting the edits I made for the plot synopsis of things.
Your edits, including when you were making the same edits as an IP editor, have repeatedly introduced poor grammar, incorrect formatting, and more wordy and cluttered language. When you have been reverted, you should be taking your views to the article's talk page as explained in WP:BRD. In the talk page discussion, your concerns could be addressed and those who are participating in the discussion could agree on what changes would be improvements. Please also make sure to sign your comments as explained in WP:TPG. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The two recent edits I made were reverted with no explanation of why, other than I hadn't stated a reason. I thought the reason would be self-explanatory. The edits were, firstly, the removal of this exchange:
"Crowder recently ambushed by Sam Seder Cameron.l.tobias (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. He had set up a civil dialogue with another YouTube commentator and in good faith expected to have a civil discussion. The other host, Ethan, had no intentions of acting in a mature manner and was not willing to dialogue with Crowder. Instead, Sam Seder was thrust in front of Crowder, and the dialogue between Ethan and Crowder was no longer possible. As this had violated the terms agreed to by both Crowder and Ethan, Steven terminated the call.Not-PCwoke (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)"
That exchange is pointless IMO. It's two voices, in apparent agreement with each other, in favour of Crowder over an exchange he had with Sam Seder. They aren't asking a question or debating something relevant to the article, just voicing opinion on the subject of something related to Crowder. The Talk page is not a forum or message board, in my understanding, so those two comments serve no purpose and should be removed. The second edit was the removal of the following statement, anonymous and sitting alone at the bottom of the page:
"Why is the 10,000th most significant event in Crowders life, the Maza story, at the top? Is is because it’s negative about him and you dislike him?"
This is just trolling. As such, I am removing those parts again, but will state my reasons, if they are not self-evident. BakedEel (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
You should not be removing talk page comments unless they are clearly inappropriate or disruptive. People are allowed to express their views about content in articles, even if you think their views are "pointless". The comments clearly relate to the article content and what should be included in the article, and there has been substantial discussion about both those topics elsewhere on the talk page and in the archives. If you want to learn more about the policies and guidelines related to this, please see WP:TPG and WP:FORUM. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
1: Nobody said their views were pointless. I said the exchange was pointless, since it served no purpose on the talk page. It was not about an edit to the article, it was a discussion about Crowder and Sam Seder. That subject with regards to the article was discussed by others, as you point out, so there are no reason for two users to start a new dialogue with no objective other than to air their views on Crowder and Seder. My understanding was the talk pages are for discussing edits to the article, not just discussing people in the article for the sake of it.
2: the line about 10,000 important things in Steven Crowder's life is trolling. I don't see what's to debate there, so unless you have an objection, I am removing the comment again. BakedEel (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Recently read Scott Adkins bio page and noticed you recently edited his page. I'm an actor of many big movies with major roles. Sunrises I don't have a wiki page yet. Also worked with Scott on 2 projects as well. Good guy and friend.
Please check my imdb imdb.Me/kevinlee
Any help or feedback on having my own page created would be great. A lot of films out there with my name attached by unlinked name due to me not having my own page. I'd like to change that 🤣
Peter Finch and children NOT related by blood to George Ingle Finch.
Please correct your entry! Peter Finch was the result of an affair between Jock Campbell and my grandfather George's wife at the time (pregnancy occurred while George was overseas fighting WW1).
I have written to Charles asking if he would like to undergo DNA testing to prove that we do not share the same grandfather and are therefore not related but I have had no answer to date.
I am the daughter of George Ingle Finch's youngest daughter, Felice (Collette) George Ingle Finch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C90A:6601:754C:FD9A:E105:11C6 (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
about Dumbo
Hi i wanted to say something in regards to the changes involving the Dumbo 2019 film, those Changes need to happen cause they were not errors, the Budget on that Film is not Real, the website that posted the Budget is Wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.229.195 (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
BLPs date of birth
Two questions. (1) Why is IMDb an unreliable source? What would be a reliable source: a birth certificate register? (2) Why Kayvan Novak's date of birth is contested? Is it controversial or there is something else? Thank you. — 2dk (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) 2dk, please read WP:IMDB and WP:DOB. The first explains Wikipedia's stance on using IMdb as a source, the second explains the policy on including a date of birth in a biography of a living person. If you encounter WP:BLP articles in which a DOB is included but not supported by a reliable source, you can remove it. Schazjmd(talk)15:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback!
I did read the rules but tought it was an important update on the subject, regardless of who wrote it, but it makes a lot of sense! So thanks for explaining and removing the entry, hopefully, someone else will notice it and add the update someday ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontrex (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wally! Thanks to you to for all you do at BLPN. I usually find your reasoning to be very sound, and you have a really good grasp of policy. When reading your comments, more often than not I find myself in agreement and thinking I would've said the same thing... only a little wordier probably. Like Blaise Pascal once said, "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I did not have time to write a short one." So, before I digress, I wish you a very Merry Christmas, and may the coming year bring you great joy and good fortune. Zaereth (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you quick back. I am new to Wikipedia. And I'm learning about it. I found a topic upon which I'm very much interested and have complete knowledge to talk about. As the information shared on the page is correct but lacks up-to-date information. So, I thought to add the recent news about the topic in a brief way. As you mention, I didn't provide any reliable source for that particular information. I'm sorry for that. This information is verified and announced by the official department. So, instead of removing it, I'll add an appropriate citation to justify the information. If there is anything, you can let me know. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplifiedblog (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Rlink2 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thought I would let you know about the ANI I opened on the IP address(es) from two months ago. It has grown into a three-part incident with no sign of stopping. Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits to the Justin Chart page
Hi @Wallyfromdilbert:, on the Justin Chart page, I noticed that you removed the section on charities and humanitarian involvement in one of the edits you made on January 23, with the note "remove promotional content sourced to article subject." Here is the edit I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Chart&oldid=1067365220
Can you please help me understand what makes this promotional content?
The article cited was a news piece published by a reputable guitar maker.
The musician is from California, a state with an increasing threat of wildfires due to climate change.
Is content detailing philanthropy considered promotional?
I've noticed that the articles of other musicians will also feature these categories on information and be ranked highly on Wikipedia's content grading scale. (See content assessment guidelines for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment )
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Please note, an effort was made to effort and properly cite information that was inaccurately removed/modified on Mr. Flowers' webpage months ago. The information was corrected yesterday and you removed the content even though correct citations were made for the content. We kindly request that you read the citations and not remove accurate information from the page as the information without these edits is misleading. We are willing to escalate to maintain these edits, if necessary. Thank you. 2601:41:4200:B820:E1FC:C9AF:6729:64A0 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your efforts were not adequate, and I have no interest in your baseless threats. That article is already pretty bad, and you adding more content, with a clear bias, that is not supported by the cited sources is against Wikipedia's biography and verifiability policies. Further, your references to "we" strongly suggests your account is also in violation of the shared account policy. Finally, do you know the article subject or have you received any payment for your changes to the article about him? I suspect that you (and the others who share your account) have a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed, and I will leave additional information on your talk page about that topic. If you have anything to discuss about the article, do so on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Notwally, for the period January 2021 to December 2022. 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.
