User talk:Picard's Facepalm

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

This is Picard's Facepalm's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Talk to me, not at me.
Hence the floating @ symbols.

July 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Acid jazz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could have simply edited the part out you think was OR, vs shitcan the whole thing - which was ref'ed. I will be re-fixing that momentarily. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Vice

Is there a reason you believe this URL

• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959822,00.html

Is not dead? -- GreenC 19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to verify I checked the header and it clearly says HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found it would be impossible for this page to be anything but 404. -- GreenC 19:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the URL in the link. The one at web.archive.org is - and it is more than alive. I can send a screenshot if you like. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:JesseRafe

For your information, I did not break any protocol, but your issue is with how Wikipedia automatically parses welcomes vs warnings. And as you hadn't been welcomed yet, I welcomed you, rather than warned you, which would go as a new topic post on the bottom. Welcomes always automatically get added to the top.

There are a lot of helpful links there which you should consult, and you would probably be a more successful contributor here if you kept it handy as a reference rather than delete it.

Moreover, you went beyond the pale and issued a passive-aggressive warning on my User Talk, which, couple with the edit summary on your own talk page removing the welcome shows a clear lack of assumption of good faith. Incidentally, one of the subject areas of the welcome links left for you. Lastly, given your facility with dropping TPG shortlinks, I may have to amend my prior comment and correct it to state that it only appears that this account has not been welcomed before. Infer from that what you may. JesseRafe (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was not parsed by WP, but rather by your employment of WP:TWINKLE, which is of course a 3rd-party, wiki java gadget/add-on, and not part of WP proper. As it says in the opening line of the aforementioned gadget's page, You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies. This of course includes proper location of anything added to a talk page by Twinkle.

While even unnecessary "welcomes" may be automatically added to the top by Twinkle - it is more than possible to easily move newly added section(s) to their appropriate location(s) within a talk page, like I had to do for you here because you again violated WP:TPG and WP:BOTTOMPOST by illicitly jamming an unfounded warning, compounded with your diatribe above into the middle of my talk page - for the second time.

Let me be clear: There will not be a third.

Additionally - your warning unfoundedly went straight to a Level3 - bypassing all semblances of escalation protocol, as defined in WP:UWLEVELS and wrongly identified my correctly placed, Level1 note (not a warning) to your talk page as Disruptive Editing, and was further, incorrectly tagged in your revert of that note as trolling - as was an innocent WP:DAB notification by a bot, which was also deleted courtesy of your continued, reckless and destructive use of TW. All of this conduct wrapped together constitutes nothing short of WP:TWABUSE and template abuse and a gross violation of WP:UWS (and extension thereby of WP:CIVIL). Some might even go so far as to considering WP:HARASSMENT.

If this sort of unacceptable conduct continues, I will be forced to open an WP:ANI to have your conduct reviewed and acted upon by the administrators. A quick perusal of ANI yields that you are certainly no stranger there, having run the gamut in repeated incidents & blocks for everything from personal attacks to edit warring to harassment (quite recently at that). I'm sure your name hitting the board yet again will make the administration a bit less than happy.

To avoid that - it is worth your while to review the helpful links in your welcome template so you can remember why you are supposed to be here. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please refrain from defamatory false accusations please? I didn't "add additional images" on the C-5 Galaxy page! --Loginnigol (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so then this edit didn't actually happen, and had to be reverted not just once but then you began engaging in an edit war and had to be reverted again. That was clearly a figment of everyone's imagination. Then you come here and post this comment to my page??? Here's your response: WP:DNTL Picard's Facepalm (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice

Please see the discussion here, concerning Just plain Bill's editing behavior, and comment as you see fit. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this. Sorry to hear that he has been edit-tracking you. That's pretty shitty for any editor to do. That being said - it appears I have no dog in this fight. I checked my interaction history with him - and while he and I disagree on the use of commenting markup tags on a single article Mixing console, after checking his contribs - seems we do not cross paths anywhere else. So at the very least he is not edit-tracking me. I wish you luck on your quest to be able to edit in peace - but I would not be able to add anything to support or further your administrative action effort. Best of luck... Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mach

you need to learn what is a Mach

And you need to learn how to WP:CITE WP:RS and WP:SIG. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

true i don't know as use wiki, but is best don't edit article you don't know, for the Mach http://www.tscm.com/mach-as.pdf

You can start at WP:HI. And you should probably heed your own advice. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.today

Please read this post from the archive.today owner: https://blog.archive.today/post/659307974748160000/ . It is supposed to redirect to something else. That way, if he loses that "something else", the .today domain will redirect to another domain. (And BTW: Thank you for your former military service - the country appreciates you!) Rlink2 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clear And Present Danger (1994) / Vondie Curtis-Hall

You have removed my edit of adding Vondie to the cast, but he's definitely in it, he plays an unnamed Voice-Print Analyst and you can find it everywhere on the internet. Look up the movie's IMDB page or do a google image search or watch the movie again because he is definitely in it.

You didn't cite any references, IMDB is not considered a WP:RS (See: WP:IMDB) and it is not a starring role. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock

Dear Picard's Facepalm,

I just wanted to send you this message as an apology for potentially starting an edit war on The Rock page. I felt that the version I created flowed better but if you think otherwise, I won't stop you from reverting it. I mean no ill will towards you or anyone/anything else, and I just wanted to get that across.

Hope you have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.65.86 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonov AKS

I noticed that you removed the Antonov AKS from the Antonov An-225 Mriya because it was canceled. Canceled related aircraft are usually included in the infobox no matter what stage they were in before cancellation. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring unreliable sources added by spammers

Please do not cite unreliable sources as you did in this edit. Reviews need to be cited to reliable sources. A reliable source is something like The New York Times, Variety, or the BBC. If you have trouble recognizing reliable sources, you can ask at WP:RSN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with your determination of the site in question as being unreliable. There are numerous sources of reference cited all over the Project which may not hold the caliber and notoriety of NYT and the BBC - but are by all means considered reliable. Considering that the site in question has never been mentioned in WP:RSN and is also not listed in WP:RSP - in addition to having over 700 movie reviews by over a dozen different reviewers, current film & actor news, conducts and publishes interviews - I don't know that being dismissive of the source's reliability is the right play to make.

While I agree the WP article editor him/herself was spamming (as evidenced by their edit history) - the source itself does seem to meet WP:SOURCEDEF, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It also has an open call on the site for additional reviewers & contributors. Taking all of this in totality - I'd have to say it meets RS criteria, and is not exactly a small, self-serving potato. I'd like to re-add the material and ref - but if you really think it warrants further scrutiny and input from others - I'd be happy to start a discussion on WP:RSN. Looking forward to your reply. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of film review blogs. Most of them are run by enthusiastic amateurs. An open call for contributors is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. They should be exclusively hiring professional journalists who have experience, not enthusiastic fans. We have sites like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times that regularly review American films. There is no reason to resort to blogs run by amateurs, which would place undue weight on their opinions. This site is analogous to WhatCulture (see WP:WHATCULTURE), a site that the author also writes for. "Writers should have some mix of expertise, experience, and/or enthusiasm" (my emphasis added) from their recruitment page is basically the same criticism as WhatCulture ("no expertise"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for your time and explanation. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit to the movie Heat (1995)

You are absolutely wrong about my edit. I added additional actors/actresses to that section that are not only well known, but more well known than the ones that are there/you kept. I also rearranged some of them, with the most well known toward the top. For example, Val Kilmer is at the bottom of the list and is one of the most well known actors in recent history. 66.220.108.197 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are well-known or not is not the point. The infobox is for starring roles, and is reflected in the template for the infobox: "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits.". Their arrangement should also be reflective of the billing block. Please be sure to adhere to these guidelines - they are readily evident in all of the film related articles on WP. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Since you thanked my edit, maybe you'll like to comment here. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self trout r.e. Bobby Lonardo

Sorry for draftifying, that was dumb of me. Qcne (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.... things happen. Looks like it has all been handled now and the pages & OA are gone (INDEF'ed). --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 14:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

I'm sorry but I've simply changed the chunk of text into the default text as given in {{logo fur}}. See Special:PermaLink/1224934104 --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you did - but don't agree with the result per WP:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree-logo and the Upload Wizard, when selecting "Copyrighted, non-free but fair-use". All those fields are there to support rationale & justification for use per WP:NFC. Stripping that information may put that justification at risk. In scanning just your most recent 250 of edits - it seems you may have actually put hundreds of images and/or logos at risk with this type of edit. --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 13:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Guido Marini's page

Hi, dearest Picard's Facepalm, how are you?

I undid the revision of Willform (March, 4th) on this page, because I think uninfluent is someone shows goatee or not. Isn't it? Rei Momo (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I do not regularly patrol that page - but I did take a look at the edits in question. Your edit looks good to me, and "sporting a beard" is unusual, normal wording. It is certainly slang in American English and doesn't really have a place as a descriptor in an article like that. I might even go so far as to say it is unnecessary WP:PUFFERY. Thanks for catching that! --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat

Hi PF!

Thank you for the updates and advice on "Heat." I was surprised to find a missing section on the actual filming of the movie. It's like discussing a fantastic meal by covering the prep, recipe, and tasting but leaving out the actual cooking. I know it was not perfect but, "I had to get it on".

Cheers! Table at dorsia (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PII

Please don't post requests for revision deletion on public forums, per WP:RFO: You must never draw attention to suppressible material, or any links to suppressible material. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly been some years since I have had to do one of those - probably a decade. In the past - ANIing them had always been encouraged - is there a new avenue in order to report these? Thanks --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ever been encouraged to post it on ANI.. In the future, please use Special:EmailUser/Oversight. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - thank you. Was not aware that was there. --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 14:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi you mentioned that I reverted an edit. It was probably a mistake, but just for my education, could you tell me which edit that was?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isoceles-sai#c-Picard's_Facepalm-20241021140900-October_2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Just popping in to say that I love your username so very much. Joyous! Noise! 17:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I find myself using that animated gif all the time online in social medial - and it is often what goes through my head when I see some of the edits I see some people do here on WP - so, I figured it fits. :D --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

(diff) I wasn't doing an "end run around" anything by changing the short description.

WP:SDPURPOSE is "disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields" (people using searches are separate from people who might see the disambig page)

Until recently WP:SDEXAMPLES specifically recommended using "YEAR film by director" to disambiguate films in the short description and many film articles use this format rather than the more generic description used for TV articles. It is not clear why they changed this previously clear advice or why anyone would prefer a generic short description over a more specific one.

A very generic description might be good enough to do that disambiguation but the name of a key person such as the director seems like a better and much more specific way to disambiguate similar titles. (The disambig page Better Off Dead uses a key person, the starring actor John Cusack to disambiguate this film.)

A more specific short description may not be entirely necessary in the case of Better Off Dead but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that my edit was not about avoiding but all about trying to better follow the guidelines in keeping with WP:SDPURPOSE and entirely in WP:GOODFAITH. -- 109.76.129.67 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Regarding this, users are allowed to remove block notices. The only thing they can't remove is declined unblock requests. --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... and unfortunate. Is this a policy that was changed at some point? Many, many moons ago I was told exactly the opposite by 2 admins when I tried removing an active block notif of my own :). Either way - understood... reviewed all the policy pages surrounding it, and updated my internal KB.

That being said - the user in question DID submit an unblock request, and then immediately deleted the entire section - block notif and unblock req. The req had not yet been acted upon. In this instance would it just be ignored as the user removed the whole thing? Just for my own curiosity. Thanks! --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 16:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the policy has changed recently; if you scan the history of WP:USERPAGE, it looks like it was close to its current form in this regard as early as 2011. Some admins have gotten this one wrong, because it does seem entirely sensible that removing block notices would be frowned upon. I'd just treat it as if the user removed the whole thing; if a user wants to back off an unblock request, they're quite welcome to. --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^Made It So _Engage! • 16:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]