Personally, I don't find it significant enough to include, Ras al Ghoul; I'd suggest that you propose it with those sources on the talk page and get feedback from other editors. Schazjmd(talk)22:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please revisit
Please can you revist Talk:College of Policing and the conversation there that you collapsed. One of the editors involved feels (rightly in my opinion) that couple of comments deserve not to be collapsed. Since then the long term antagonist on this talk page, whose only Wikipedia contributions are arguments about his own contribution, has repeatedly reverted the display to what you put in place. So can you please take a look and see if the two extra lines that Hippo43 is wanting to include is reasonable in your opinion? Then it'll shut down another line of bickering allowing (hopefully) focus on the RfC - maybe we can even close it as yet another editor has concluded that the proposed text shouldn't be added. Thanks for your consideration as well as your original intervention. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. We have an editor here who is derailing the discussion by falsely accusing me of dishonesty in blatant violation of Wikipedia's rules. And just because that same editor refuses to accept your judgment that this conduct is obviously inappropriate your response is to just - give in to them? With respect, how does that make any sense? If you won't uphold Wikipedia's rules and defend me from this disruptive conduct, can you please advise me as to who I am meant to complain to in order to get this resolved. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I have complained completely about this inappropriate conduct, which obviously breaks the rules, and yet no-one seems to care. Telanian7790 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because of your endless carping about process rather than content. If you cannot see this then you really should consider the advice at Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You have contributed little or nothing to Wikipedia since you started these arguments. It's time for you to stop and let everyone get back to creating and improving content. Please do give it some thought. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Telanian7790, the editor who originally hid part of the conversation inadvertently included RfC comments that should not have been hidden. I simply corrected the tags she applied. Any editor could have done so. We are all just peer volunteer editors.That said, your complaint to WP:ANI was archived without action. I don't know whether that was because no administrator wanted to get involved or because no administrator found the complaint had merit or simply because no administrator paid it any attention. My personal advice is to just ignore the comments that you took offense to and finish the RfC so you can move on to other, less aggravating areas of the project to work on. Schazjmd(talk)14:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re telling me that Hippo43 and 10mmsocket are entitled to shout me down by falsely accusing me of dishonesty - and even though they are clearly the ones being disruptive and breaking the rules, and failing to engage in a collaborative way, I just have to put up with it? Are you really saying that’s how things work here? Telanian7790 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to do absolutely nothing in response to blatant rule-breaking and - I think one can safely say at this point - bullying taking place right in front of you. Ok, understood. Telanian7790 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for undoing my random addition of another editor's username into the talk page - As you guessed I a sure, fat finger trouble! Appreciated. Springnuts (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question:
For some reason, I added some detail with references with this source. But somehow you reverted it. Can you give me a reason why it is not a reliable source? Also I used this sentence in this article:
"Platform is considered a hub of LA's creative community, which inspired great neighborhoods globally. This shopping center also offers free events as well."[1]
Hi, thanks for asking. That claim needs a reliable independent source, not a press release/advertisement from a commercial business. (Please notice that you also misworded the source as well; it says Platform was inspired by, not that it has inspired anything.) The sentence is a flowery, marketing-style claim, not an encyclopedic description. Schazjmd(talk)16:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, in other times, I might find a reliable and accurate source link and check if it is true and explains the content of the article. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was researching old journalism for Chicago circulation wars and Louis Sobol, and "sob sister" kept coming up in the sources. I was surprised we didn't already have an article on them, but kind of delighted too because it meant I could write one. I haven't come across anything on stunt girls, but I look forward to reading your work on them! Schazjmd(talk)16:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Stunt girl" is almost certainly the same as stunt girl/girl stunt reporters. It's basically a term used for women reporters (like Bly) who did silly, norm-defying or dangerous things to sell newspapers. The 1900s equivalent of clickbait. I've ordered that book, too! LMK when you get it, totally would be fun to collab on this article. :D valereee (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, Valereee. I used Front Page Girls by Jean Marie Lutes for the sob sister article, and its index lists a bunch of pages on "stunt reporters". (I got that one through abebooks.) Also, Covering America has 3 pages on stunts. It's fun when there's a wealth of sources. Schazjmd(talk)22:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, Valereee! My copy of Sensational is still "in transit", but I could add content from Front Page Girls and Covering America, if you're okay with it? Schazjmd(talk)21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added several more sources and moved to article space, as I think it's definitely ready, though images would be good. :D valereee (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, odd synchronicity: I was researching for another article that I'm working on, and came across a 1914 stunt girl article (she pretended to be an immigrant to investigate disappearances). Must have been part of a series, it's on the last page of the paper and is only the beginning of the story. It was neat to encounter one in the wild. Schazjmd(talk)18:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't slap one of the warning templates on your talk page because you're an experienced editor. But you should know that this edit of yours is a violation of WP:BLP. You provided no reliable source and the edit caused the subject of the article to complain to the Volunteer Response Team (I am the agent handling the complaint). Proof of identity and name has been provided.
Yes, I saw that after I left you the note. This seems to be a case of a reliable source containing a pretty blatant error. I have explained to Mr Walsh that there was no malicious intent in characterizing his name as a pseudonym because all Wikipedia can do is report what reliable sources say, and I suggested that he contact the NYT about a retraction. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. When I realized "pseudonym" was considered controversial, I stopped editing the article. Still, my original edit without citing the source was poorly done and I will be more careful in the future. Schazjmd(talk)16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect "pseudonym" to be controversial either, especially if the NYT says it. That article is 10 years old though. Maybe he changed his name since then. In any case there's no question it's his real name now. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ybsone, sorry, I see that you reverted those edits but they're not actually deleted. The tag is so an administrator can remove the content from the history of the article. It's standard for copyright violations. Schazjmd(talk)22:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for flagging Draft:Essonti. Yes, if a text is copyright, then a translation of it (however poor) is also copyright. I've deleted the draft accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby Curtis
Hey, thanks for editing that part about Ruby :)
I was wondering if I could ask you a favour. I thought it was appropriate given it's related to the previous consensus but I'm sorry if it isn't.
Jamie Lee Curtis' infobox says she has 2 children - with "including Ruby" written in brackets. Please could you excise this, as she doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and doesn't even have her own page. Having her specified there feels like she's being defined by her transness, although I'm sure whoever wrote that meant well. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that's weird. I just rechecked Jamie's page and it wasn't in the infobox. I swear I saw it there earlier. Regardless, ty and have a great day 92.10.13.209 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not there now (on either article), I'd remove it otherwise. Hopefully, the removal I made on Jamie's page persists. You had a really good point about the trans mention being gratuitous. Schazjmd(talk)13:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did you find out the earlier deleted page on the subject? Just went through the Search and selected Wikipedia namespace? I had gone through the Special page on deleted articles, and didn't find anything! Jay(talk)02:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, something about the article triggered a vague memory of seeing it before, so I used the focused search box at WP:AFD to search on Duffy, then CTRL + F on the results for Craig. Schazjmd(talk)13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that I couldn't find one more recent than 2013 though, because I wasn't active then and wouldn't have seen this one before. I'm pretty sure there's been a more recent version of that article, I just can't find evidence. Schazjmd(talk)13:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ulf Mark Schneider Update
Hi Schazjmd. I saw that you were interested in pages about people and was hoping you might be willing to review my COI request located at the bottom of Talk:Ulf Mark Schneider. It's regarding adding a few sentences summarizing a Financial Times profile story on him. Buckeye16505 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Buckeye16505, I don't enjoy corporate or financial content. Where Financial Times says "mature", you say "stagnant", so I'm not confident in the neutrality of the draft content that you provided, but I'm not interested enough in the subject to summarize the FT article myself. There are editors who watch the category of articles with COI edit requests, I'm sure one of them will pick up your request. Schazjmd(talk)20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne La Pierre
Thanks for your help about the lawsuit. You may note that this important piece of information has since been deleted from the page. Valetude (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help with Will Maslow. I'm a veteran researcher and long-time user of Wikipedia but new to adding and editing content. Thanks to you, I now get it that background content on external connections to a main topic is relevant only in the Wiki pages of those external topics.
FYI, the mention of Arthur Garfield Hays concurrent and subsequent role as ACLU's general counsel links to Will Maslow's later career in civil liberties (not yet inserted). Also, not sure why you took out the intro table of contents, which I thought was helpful as a quick preview of his career. Muffbuff1001 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Muffbuff1001 and welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, I removed some of the background information; a single sentence explaining the significance of something can be useful in an article, but more than that is unnecessary and possibly misleading. For example, "Some historians consider the period from 1937 through 1942 the most effective in NLRB's history, and among the most effective in the history of federal administrative agencies." indirectly implies that reputation was due to Maslow.I didn't remove the table of contents, it's programmatically inserted by the software when there are sufficient heading levels. Schazjmd(talk)21:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requested changes to bio page
Hi Schazjmd. I disclosed a conflict of interest and requested some trims to the David Baszucki page here. The trims are mostly directed to undue and promotionalism issues, such as listing trivial awards (100 most intriguing executives), discussing a blog post he wrote of no significance, and listing an event he spoke at. I was hoping you might be willing to review the changes I proposed. Best regards. Sspielman1 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sspielman1. Sorry, I've never edited that article and know nothing about that person, and I don't have any interest in learning enough about him to properly evaluate the changes. I'd suggest asking editors who have been involved with that article. (On the revision history page, click Page statistics to see the editors with the most input to the article.) Schazjmd(talk)22:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Importance
How about if we set up a poll? Almost anything to do with Kansas and other projects would be of either A or B importance. You giving it a C is out of place.PartTroix (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if this page is being targeted by SPAs for this sort of abuse. If it continues and gets intense, feel free to ask me to protect it without having to go to RFPP. I would understand the need. Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded and updated it a few years after reading the Vox article used as a source, and having invested that much time into it put it on my watchlist. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template Removal
Greetings, May I ask how I removed these templetes/context from the user you mentioned? If I did remove templates/context I am very sorry, the cuase might have been an unnoticed accident when attempting to contact the user. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BloxyColaSweet, I don't know how you did it. In your edit, you changed the archive box to an archive banner, removed portions of other editors' signatures on their posts, removed some nowiki tags, and deleted large amounts of content. Schazjmd(talk)14:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BloxyColaSweet, perhaps you have a script installed or some sort of browser extension that is causing the problem, because you made the same incorrect changes to my talk page when you posted your message and also on User talk:Nick Moyes when you posted there. I suggest you figure out the problem and fix it. You may be able to get assistance at and WP:HELPDESK or WP:VPT. Schazjmd(talk)14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your explanation which you gave to an user who asked to add parant(s) parameter in Shamsheer Vayalil bio infobox. I've a question that how to find whether parent are notable or not because I want to create a wikipedia page for my maternal grandfather(former MLA)in that I want to add his parent(s),relatives and spouse parameters in his bio infobox .Don't you think that the user request for adding parant(s) parameter is genuine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osam1278 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to Wikipedia
Thanks for your user page direction to "Listen to Wikipedia" (wherein someone has written code to convert recent edits into music). It is quite beautiful, even relaxing and soothing. Do you know if there's a way to include only the edits to WP:AN/I? You know, for when you're in the mood for a little screamo thrash-metal? signed, Willondon (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you report this? He has had warnings but has started up again (as you know). I've reverted his latest crusade as much as poss. but am not sure how to take it further. Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) Plutonium27 (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plutonium27, US's edits don't appear to be disruptive enough to justify a report. Most of their edits are removing unsourced content, which is arguably permitted by policy. Since editors aren't required to search for a source themselves before removing unsourced content, they have a defense against their failure to do so. I think their approach to edit summaries is irritating but again, not against policy. For now, all I can do is add back the removed content with new refs (when available). Schazjmd(talk)14:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff he's removing is all a matter of common knowledge/public record. He's being a gouging pedantic wrecker against chosen targets - specifically those of Jewish descent.Plutonium27 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB04:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meryl Streep
Thanks for the tip about IMDB. I won't use it anymore. However, the source given in the body is inadequate. The googlenews scan is difficult to navigate and I couldn't find an article about the marriage. Do you know what page it's on? Blainster (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blainster, no problem...it can be frustrating because imdb has useful info but since it's often user-generated, it's not considered reliable (particularly for BLPs). The content supporting Streep's marriage is on the linked page in ref 253, in the "People: What They're Saying...Doing" column, last 3 paragraphs. Schazjmd(talk)22:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Many websites explain that the singular of "incidence" is generally appropriate, when used as an epidemiological term
The fact that "incidents" sounds like "incidence" is the obvious source of this confusion. Grammar checkers that correct "incidence" to "incidences" (when a plural form is expected) don't help to clear things up.
@Fabrickator, pings are redundant when you post on someone's talk page. I haven't interfered with your crusade to replace "incidences" elsewhere on Wikipedia. I reverted your change to a direct quote. Your opinion that the judge should have used a different word in his decision is insufficient grounds for changing a direct quote. I am done with this discussion. Schazjmd(talk)14:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ) I was really wondering how did you do it. First thought you are just familiar with that language. As one as for that one I didn't even imagine "title" field have not to be empty too. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to have first and last. But if you do have first, you must have last. See the Prerequisites column on the template doc page. Schazjmd(talk)16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but that's not obvious it's surely required up to raising the template error someone will haunt you for appearing of, sometimes there's just no any way to find out clearly the last name (i.e. as one with another languaged source) or source author name provided is not a person, but just some i.e. company - and there's no optionary field to be filled as right-chosen then. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To not be unsubstantiated: how to mention source's author, which is obviously not a person here? What "cite web" template field have to be used for filling it with "DefenseRomania Team" and strictly following field descriptions at once? 85.238.103.38 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That ref is fine. I don't think it's necessary to attribute "DefenseRomania Team", but if you want to, the instructions at Template:Cite web say " For corporate authors or authors for whom only one name is listed by the source, use last "Schazjmd(talk)21:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant answer! Nobody ever pointed me on it (I bet noone even know it exist there)! And I was unable to find it by myself. Thank you. As of mentioned article's source - I agreed in that exact case there's no need to write more then once (once it's already mentioned at "website" field) source name as it will look that way mostly as source advertising and not just keeping reader informed about it, I just used it as example to show you cases possible. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your revert of my removal of information about a book here [[1]] - I’ve _no_ idea why I removed that material(!), and it may well have been an accidental deletion, because I was working on a phone with a tiny screen. Either way, absolutely good shout to put it back, and thank you. With all good wishes Springnuts (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I originally added something to Keffals's wikipedia page, but I removed it because I thought that some people would see it as wikipedia vandalism, and because I have a crippling feeling of wanting to be liked by everyone, and Destiny made a big deal about her community trying to vandalize his wikipedia, I deleted it, but I realize now it was stupid because I was just saying that something was an allegation, so thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainstormerX (talk • contribs)
Hope you are well
Hope all is well.
I just posted an appeal to my topic ban at the administrators noticeboard. You were supportive in my last appeal, and I would appreciate if you could share your rationale for having done so to the discussion of my current appeal (the last saw no consensus in its closure). Perhaps even review my latest appeal and consider sharing whether or not you would again support lifting my topic ban.
@M.Bitton, good question. First ref appears to be primary to an esperanto org; 2nd is to a wiki; 3nd is the same youtube video; 4th is an esperanto page that doesn't mention gufojo. Just sounds like some like-minded folks get together to have nonalcoholic drinks and chat. I'll need to do a solid before, tomorrow. (Btw, online translations tools don't handle esperanto very well!, I found.) Schazjmd(talk)00:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton, I couldn't find any reliable sources online, but an Amazon review of Complete Esperanto] mentions that it discusses gufujo so I've put it on hold at my library. If it has more than the Wiktionary:gufujo entry, I'll add whatever it supports to Esperanto#Culture and redirect the old article. If the book doesn't support more than the wiktionary entry, I think I'll propose a prod. Schazjmd(talk)15:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton:, the book only has a brief description of gufujo (in a culture tip), contrasting it with a drinkejo. I don't see enough significance to call attention to the concept, so I'm going to propose deletion without merging. Schazjmd(talk)21:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me about the PPT election being on December (Patrick Leahy) and, importantly, assuming good faith. God bless, have a great day! ^_^
Brand new account created within a month after his previous sockpuppets (2018 McLaren 600LT and Bugs Meanie) were blocked. Obviously pirated username (SpamMan247, Spamfighter247). Account supposedly created to help out with spam and vandalism, something MegaMack has inadvertently stated that he intends to do, for example in his edits prior to his vandalism and ban. User does not use the standard vandalism warning templates and instead leaves personalized messages instead. SpamMan247 was using doublecheck.wikiloop.org to find vandalism, and somehow managed to set up and use within 3 edits of joining. His spam fighting campaign has had the exact same WP:CIR issues as MegaMack02’s previous socks and involved reverting several edits that were blatantly not vandalism. The account has created one article, Tirrito Cars and recreated Samsung SSC-1 (a draft page frequently targeted by 3 MegaMack02 socks) as Samsung Sports Car-1. All of these pages were frequented by 3 of his previous socks. Their edits there involved blatant recreation and adding information in the infoboxes that was added to various articles as the final edit of @McLaren 570S before they got blocked. Looking at their contributions you'll see the same style of aggressive edit summaries against edits they deem to be vandalism and the same inconsistent use of RVV to mean revert (similar to Thegameshowlad’s previous sock Spamfighter247), rather than the much more common RV.
Edits to Kanye West..? (Looking.) Oh, good grief. And in an actual quote, too. Those edits were so small I didn't even bother to look at them. Big mistake. Bishonen | tålk20:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I've reverted you. Apollo 13 is still the crewed spacecraft that's gone furthest from Earth. Pearlman's category is spacecraft capable of carrying astronauts and he's overlooked Snoopy, Apollo 10's LM ascent stage, which is out there in solar orbit. Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this false story is getting legs. I sent an email, maybe it will help. Odd Pearlman would overlook Snoopy, he's normally very good. Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Have you ever considered it? I seem to cross paths with you a lot and whenever I've run into you I've found you to be an exceptionally reasonable and intelligent editor. I think you would make a good administrator. Spicy (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy, thank you for the compliment! I respect you a lot as an editor so it was quite a boost to start the morning with your message. Hardly a day goes by that I'm not grateful for the editors who've taken on the admin load, but I realized awhile back that there wasn't anything I enjoyed doing on WP that required the tools. Schazjmd(talk)16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrFluffster, in Young Sheldon, he says that his son's name is Leonard. That's all we know. Unless Young Sheldon later states that his son's middle name is Rajesh, we don't know that it is, and making an assumption that he and Amy fulfilled that agreement is original research. Schazjmd(talk)13:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw you cleared up the recent "water pollution" OR. I have to confess, every time I see an edu assignment added to the talk page for an article on my watchlist, my stomach sinks. Too much original thought and synthesis (expected for a college paper, not for a wp article). They also tend to segment their writing into their own little sections without regard for the overall article structure. </endvent> Thanks for your efforts too! Schazjmd(talk)16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing, Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about people being able to edit freely, which i was trying to do by the way. It seems you're against that policy, and i want to know why? IslandScholar (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IslandScholar, people can edit but other editors can disagree with the changes that you make. When that happens, you need to discuss it with the other editors on the article's talk page to get consensus. Two editors have objected to the images you've changed in Holland Taylor, so you need to make your case on Talk:Holland Taylor for why you think the image you want in the article is better than the current one. Schazjmd(talk)00:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
U are the one that changed it each time, and that is the reason i am addressing you on your talk page, and by the way absolutely nothing was wrong with the images i chose to put on Miss Holland's page! IslandScholar (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IslandScholar, the article had an image. You changed it. FlightTime Phone and I both reverted your change. I can't quite understand your reasoning that it's okay for you to change the image but not for anyone else to change it back. Regardless, this discussion belongs on Talk:Holland Taylor where any interested editors can participate. Schazjmd(talk)00:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, idk if we are friends or not but HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well if we are friends let's be friends!! ConM2341 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Reluctant Astronaut
I saw that you removed the "uncredited" actors that I added to The Reluctant Astronaut. This information is available on IMDB. Additionally, most, if not all, of those actors have references to the movie on their own Wikipedia pages. Plus, I watched the movie and I know the actors and am well aware that it was them in the movie. Any guidance you can provide to add legitimacy to their additions is appreciated. Wallstreethotrod (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schazjmd. I disclosed an affiliation with India Hicks and proposed some updates to the page on Talk here. Nobody’s responded yet and I saw you reviewed the overhaul of the page my colleague proposed last year, so I thought maybe you’d be willing to have a look. ~~~~ Zoelin99 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zoelin99, I'll try to get to it today. The reason nobody has responded is because, without the correct edit request template, editors aren't aware that there is one. (Using the template automatically adds the article to central notification areas for editors who respond to edit requests.) Please see WP:COIREQ for instructions for future requests. Schazjmd(talk)19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Research question
Dear Schazjmd,
I am a graduate student at the University of Washington researching how information intersects with conflict including right-wing activity within the US. I've been reading up on the "Cascadia Movement" and noticed you have been active reverting edits to that page made from an IP address starting with 2601:600:8e00.
I was wondering if you would be willing to be contacted via email to discuss what sort of edits were made from that IP address and what they were reverted to.
If you are willing to talk please email me at bing8381@uw.edu 205.175.106.151 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Abhishek0831996, since this matter is being brought up again in multiple venues: I did not reply to your question because your accusation in the edit summary of your revert and this talk page comment indicated that you were not interested in any actual discussion. To answer the question now, I never said that the sources were unreliable. I said the claim was "poorly sourced" and it is; the cited sources did not support "on multiple occasions". I have expanded on the reason for my removal of that content on the article's talk page where hopefully other editors will reach a consensus on that article while it's locked down. I am not watching that article and will not be editing it again. Because of your antagonistic approach, I'd prefer that you never post to my talk page again. Schazjmd(talk)15:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page Corrections
Hi... this is Chip and I am attempting to correct items on my page...we seem to be going back and forth correcting the page...I am adding some background information along with some corrections... any questions... please reach out Cravaack (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People did not want to include Michael's complicity in a trans woman's death. However it has now been reported on in multiple news outlets. I do not have the standing to edit the article, but now it has been reported on, it should be something that may be added to his article. If he comes out with his side of the story maybe that could be added on too. However, I think it is definitely worth mentioning that this is something that seems to have happened. Maybe it could be phrased as "The Independent reported..." or something along those lines.
(not sure how to sign it but I'm guessing it'll show up in edit history).
brother, i don't understand why you changed my Abdulquddus Atiah edit because i was just telling about the current situation about him and how social media is representing him. it should be good information for any wiki page ProGamer111333 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ProGamer111333, I'm not your brother nor am I male. I suggest you use account names to address other editors.Content needs reliable independent published sources. The content you added is unsourced and not encyclopedic. (Same with your latest edit, which I also reverted as unsourced.) Schazjmd(talk)17:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I was going to post this to your talk but just saw the latest conversation there and didn't want to be part of it.
Re: the kerfuffle on ANI and at Editorkamran's talk...I watch mentions of Wikipedia on Twitter (great way to find braggarts posting their vandalism) and saw a discussion of how WP had slammed G. D. Bakshi so I took a look. I've never heard of him and know little-to-nothing about political issues in India, I just thought it was an ordinary BLP. I saw where the statement had been added to the lead, checked the text against its sources and compared it to the body, determined it was misleading and not reflective of the article, so I removed it (and was reverted). On just about any other article, I would have taken it to the talk page, but the CT alert and the virulence of the reverting editor combined with my near-ignorance of that content area dissuaded me from trying. I had stumbled onto an article ruled by unreasonable passions and couldn't back away fast enough.
This is just to explain why I failed to start a discussion after the revert. With the article locked down, I posted on its talk this morning to hopefully get the interested editors discussing it (I won't be participating beyond that). "Contentious topics" is an apt label. Schazjmd(talk)14:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I didn't want to drag you into this kerfuffle (a very good word), since you had obviously stepped away from it after the revert. Thanks for the explanation though - that's pretty much what I figured. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan Fillion
Schazjmd,
In regards to the Nathan Fillion page, according to his page on IMDB, his full name is Nathan Christopher Fillion.
For numerous reverts in one click, see this tool! It's 155 lines of code, and once you install it, it's easier rather than just reverting one-by-one! TailsWx16:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the questions I had in the article. I missed that Fyre was italicized (and sometimes italics in articles aren't as carefully used as they might be), so I didn't catch that this indeed specified which of the two documentaries was being referenced.
But "Andy King's signature quote" was way out there in terms of things that had zero context in the article (or the articles for either of the two documentaries, which I did check first before tagging this) -- I very much appreciate your edits to get it contextualized. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ghertydjzww
Can you please investigate user:Ghertydjzww? I saw you gave him a warning a few days ago. He is a bit too confrontational and has a very poignant tone after I made an edit on a topic Jervis49 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply and looking into it, by the way. I was mainly referring to the comments he left on my page due to the edit I made on the Charlebois page. Jervis49 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jervis49, I saw those yesterday and have been keeping an eye on it. There were two odd comments, a question about a source, and a thank you...nothing specific to warn about. Per WP:OWNTALK, you are entitled to remove comments from your talk page, if you want. Schazjmd(talk)13:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I have suspicion that this might be a sockpuppet from Janvez, due to the patterns exhibited between this account and previous sockpuppets. But just a hunch for now.
Thanks for your editing assistance apparently you were adjusting it at the same time I was at some point
Your comment was (and no, the backward format of access-date was not correct)
You are wrong about that ...
when i wrote the page 28 January 2008 I used the Endeavour website as well as the paper (IRL) "File 770" newsletter/ezine as the source when creating the page.
At the time I added the external link => as the reference as the ref template did not exist in its current form or maybe I just couldn't find it then so indeed they were the original reference sources at that time.
i have print copies of the "File 770" but not the link to them either since there didn't seem to be a way to @iolair--I 06:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iolair: In your edit, you changed access-date=28 January 2006 to access-date=2006 January 28 with the added text yes that is correct. That added text doesn't belong in the ref at all, and the acceptable date formats in access-date (1) should be consistent throughout the article and (2) can be month-day-year (with month spelled out), or day-month-year (with month spelled out) or year-month-day (all numeric). Year-month-day with the month spelled out is not one of the options. See MOS:DATE and MOS:DATEUNIFY. (Also, please use ~~~~ to sign your comments so the software will automatically add the timestamp as well as a link to your talk page.) Thanks. Schazjmd(talk)13:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agatha Christie visited Pakistan and said some words about Urdu spying literature and about Ibn-e-Safi. Proof is available. Please do not remove info from Wikipedia. Regards. Sayyedfahad (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many references included in Agatha Christie article like Agatha Christie visits, her likes etc, these are also not important but included in article, this info can be added. There are many references, amazon reference was included but you can remove those references which are not important. Agatha Christie visited Pakistan. I've copy of 1960 weekly newspaper, I can email you if you need the page. Hope positive reply will be received. Regards. Sayyedfahad (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...
For your looking in at Carol Dweck. Always helpful to have someone look in after major editing. In re: my recent conversion of the the block quote to prose—if you or another editor wants to do a careful deletion there, of the objectionable material, that is fine by me. I simple want the issues to be clear to readers (and leave to a logging editor the role of deleting it, should it be desirable). Cheers. 2601:246:C200:4619:926:F7C2:6D6B:7EC3 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of tags is to point out where the summary of a source needs attention (how the editor worded the summary), not to interrogate what the sources quote people saying. Also, when a source at the end of a para supports the entire para, it's unnecessary to tag source needed after individual sentences in the para. Tags aren't an avenue for an editor to convey to the reader that they don't agree with what the sources state. If there are sources that challenge the criticisms of Dweck's work, they can be cited and summarized. Schazjmd(talk)15:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial Presidency
I understand your rationale for reverting the citation needed tags I applied, and completely agree with your description of the quotations coming from a source previously cited. However, unambiguous Wikipedia policy requires citations, including page numbers, for all direct quotations. In this instance, an interested reader cannot easily
locatw the quotes passages in the source material. Unless you can make a case for why these quotations are exceptional to Wikipedia quotation policy, each direct quotation requires a specific citation. Huskerdru (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfromarg, Screnda, and Lupolarbear:: I don't know if your accounts are all operated by a single individual, or if you are three different individuals, however it is clear that all three accounts are using Wikipedia to gain visibility for the House of SpeakEasy YouTube channel. All three have added gratuitous plugs for the channel by shoehorning it into the narrative text of the article.[5][6][7]
Please stop.
There is apparently a conflict-of-interest between these three accounts and the YouTube channel. I've placed an informational notice on each account's talk page. Please read it and follow its advice. Schazjmd(talk)16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You even say that on your talk page.
Wikipedia is supposed to be ENCYCLOPEDIC, and telling readers that a source cannot be trusted is IMPORTANT.
For some reason, you want to limit this information to editors only, and not to the general public, who are not experts in determining fact from fiction?
@The most effectual Bob Cat, that a bunch of volunteer editors have decided that imdb is not a reliable source for the purpose of writing articles is not significant information for the encyclopedia article about imdb. We don't consider imdb to be reliable for the same reason that we don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, because information can be added by individuals without oversight. That information is not necessarily false or "fiction", we simply have a higher standard for verifiability. You're welcome to open a discussion on the article's talk page if you'd like to get input from more editors. Schazjmd(talk)13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who made you the final authority on what is fact? The Classic Rock entry misrepresents the genre. I don't care that there's a "source" stating otherwise. That's an opinion just like mine is. Classic Rock did not extend into the mid-'90s. It's not accurate to call something disruptive when it's every bit based on fact as the article used as a "source". Boney421 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note having declined (for the time being) to block you: I listen regularly to a classic rock station (WPDH, if it matters), having listened to what could be called classic rock (even back when it was still played on stations that described their format as AOR) since I was a teenager, and that station plays a lot of '90s music, mainly grunge and post-grunge.
Yes, granted, a lot of sources may be expressing their opinions, but those are the opinions of people with enough expertise or credibility with enough people to get published in or by reliable sources. And they usually cite incontrovertible facts to support their opinion. Perhaps your own time would be better spent getting one of those sources to publish your opinion so it can be cited in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That station, and many others, play that music because their listener bases are starting to die off, and they have added newer music to appeal to 30-somethings. That doesn't make it Classic Rock. When I was a kid, the '50s were 30 years ago. Now, that's 1993. Would you classify a song from 1993 as an "Oldie"? Probably not. That's because it doesn't suddenly live in that genre just because it reaches a certain age. Boney421 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I change a detail to be more accurate, and I'm "disruptive" because I don't have a source. I add a source, and the source isn't good enough. At what point does information not get flagged as disruptive... Only once Big Brother agrees with it? Boney421 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boney421, your edits were disruptive because they were unsourced and you were edit-warring: repeatedly restoring reverted content. The content already cited a reliable source, and your edits aren't engaging with that point. When you did add a source, it was to a blog, which is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. For the final time, please discuss at Talk:Classic rock, if you think you can come up with sources to counter the already-sourced content in the article. Schazjmd(talk)19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Their listener bases are starting to die off". Gee, way to make someone feel old. Thanks!
PDH has played '90s music during most of the 20 years I've been listening to it, which sort of blows up your theory. It is true that there is a younger component of the audience, which is to me most apparent when they do their daily "Mystery riff" challenge, one that never manages to stump me (I mean, just yesterday they played the riff from Def Leppard's "Photograph" and it took a couple of callers before someone got it). But then again I recall that similar challenges on the classic rock stations I listened to in my teens did stump me (like once they played Wilson Pickett's "In the Midnight Hour"
Yes, I would classify a 30-year-old song as an "oldie". You may not have noticed in the '80s, but back then there were still plenty of stations (mostly on AM) that played oldies formats, some focusing on (yes) early rock'n'roll, doo-wop and pop from the pre-Beatles '60s, to a listener base as old then as I am now. Others aimed for an even older audience and played swing and big band classics. Those, then, we called oldies stations.
While I've noticed that today's classic-rock playlist leans less heavily on the 1964-70 period than it used to (you won't hear much pre-Sgt. Pepper Beatles; in fact you hear "Satisfaction" more than "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"), it still plays those songs, which are older than I am, and for which the equivalent during the 1980s would have been a station playing, oh, scratchy old Dixieland 78s from the 1920s. Something I really don't remember back then.
Given your zeal for enforcing a fixed definition of classic rock, and the warnings it's gotten you, I strongly recommend you read this and consider it if you really want to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's where the articles become unreliable. That one even has statistics... But even those numbers don't define what Classic Rock IS. They only tell us what is being played on stations that define themselves as Classic Rock. Just because WROK plays Green Day doesn't make them Classic any more than playing an Alan Jackson song in a jazz club makes him a jazz artist. Everybody acts like it's a moving target, and I submit it's not. I'm new here and I can't figure out how to post on Talk:Classic rock, or maybe I would. Also, how is my repeatedly changing something any worse than either of you swooping in and changing it back? Just because something is a blog doesn't automatically invalidate the information it contains. It seems you just don't agree with me, and for that I get labeled "disruptive". I'm curious what either of your authorities are. Do you work for Wikipedia? Has someone granted you the responsibility to decide what is correct and what isn't? Boney421 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boney421, I'm glad you figured out how to post on the article's talk page. I don't think you've taken in what we've been trying to get across to you: Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. For your arguments to be convincing, you're going to need to research and find reliable sources that support your arguments. Just declaring what you think isn't going to change anyone's mind, and it really isn't going to result in any changes to the article. I'm going to place a welcome template on your talk page, it has some useful links that can help you get started IF you really want to edit on Wikipedia. If you don't, if your only purpose is to get Classic rock to say what you think it should say, I expect you're going to be disappointed with your experience here. Schazjmd(talk)21:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please block him once and for all. No matter how much you have given him warnings, he still continues to add irrelevant/poorly unsourced information on the Fousheé page and I had to go and revert him... PLEASE Tuti Fritter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schazjmd. I work for Garrett Camp. The current page about him is pretty bare-bones and still has a lot of promotional content, such as the Awards section. I proposed a draft to fix these issues back in April. While editors addressed the BLP issues, they expressly stated they haven't reviewed the draft yet. So, I'm sort of poking around for someone willing to take a look at it. I was hoping you might be willing to review it. Let me know. I'm happy to go through it in section or annotate it to make it easier to see individual changes - whatever is easiest. John Pinette (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your help today. It meant a lot to have a third party involved. I'm rather terrible at summarizing....I was too exhausted last week from finishing the article to prepare a nice, concise dossier so I figured, let's just see....And this whole week was calm, until today. Hence the loquacious, messy report. But without you as a calming, and logical, presence to help restore some objective, neutral sanity, who knows. Idk where to find barnstars exactly, but my words are a deconstructed barnstar! Great sources too, btw. Do you have a link for the Kevin Starr Oxford U-P journal? I'd like to cite-journal it in the article, along with the other 2. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk00:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Why are you deleting Betty R. King's name? She been on this page for AGES. I didn't just add her for God's sake! Why are you not taking down Lisa Hart Carroll's name, too? She's in the cast... OR is she? She's not the subject of a Wikipedia article either. She doesn't have the classical Wikipedia #'s in [ ]'s citation bearer either. Go ahead, rip her name down, too. Why don't you take down Norman Bennett's, Troy Bishop's, Megan Morris' and Kate Charleston's names down while you're at it, as well. Go on, for they"re not "properly cited" either.
Don't believe these people exist? Go to IMDb.com and find out for yourself, and then delete--or NOT delete--them, too. (Or "cite" each one of them yourself, or, NOT.)
And, after that, you can then go to every Wikipedia page for a film and delete all of the names of all of the actors who don't link to a page on Wikipedia, IMDb.com, or any other online website that proves anyone and everyone exists. When you're through going through those God-knows-how-many-thousands-and-thousands-of-film-articles-and-lists of information, you can then move on to your starting to take down the uncited names of former 1970s Idaho county commissioners, obscure children's book authors, major league baseball players that played only two weeks in a season back in 1952, 19th-Century Catholic prelates who have served in dioceses in Finland, then follow that with every person whoever did voiceover radio work on "Little Orphan Annie" during the Great Depression. Delete them, OR cite them--I don't care.
But, for you to just delete Betty R. King's name off of all of these pages for films she was in? REALLY? You're NOT editing Wikipedia, but you ARE deleting artistic contributions (like Ms. King's), and you're also effectively destroying history, and doing so in a willful, malicious, discriminatory, and almost predatory fashion. Why are you following me around here and tossing out an elderly character actress' name (and actor's, for you, also, apparently, have something against the late British character actor and opera singer Byron Webster, for you deleted a number of his credits, too) and works, out the damned window? I have never had an experience like this before. Why are you being so truculent and extra-judicial with these minor information additions? Why don't just tear down every name of every uncited person or thing on Wikipedia while you're at it, for Pete's sake!
Wikipedia is supposed to be a universe of expanding knowledge, deepening learning, and done so through good-faith altruism, both voluntary and considerate, academic and subjective. So, stop acting like a black hole of history, mutualism, and sharing in this shared-by-all universe, or I will be forced to contact the proper and relevant administrative authorities of this website and deliver the necessary and requisite grievances apropos of this malice, inconsistency, bullying and methodological inconsistency, for it is NOT what Wikipedia is about and for, nor is it for you alone.
I'm simply here to share. Why you're here, I simply don't care.
I understand your reversion, though it's sad that I'm apparently the only person on the planet who ever realized the obvious connection to Falstaff. (I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia where someone is allowed to make an obvious connection between one media production and another, without having a secondary source verify it; but that doesn't always happen, obviously.) Have a pleasant evening. John315 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spicy (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your tweaks to my edits of the article. You wrote "one person wrote a column, that doesn't equal 'some' " -- I agree I overreached there. I even agree it was fine to move my comments farther down in the article so they are not as prominent. However, I think that moving them down leads to an awkward transition --
Many indigenous peoples trace their ancestry to “star-people” or the like—extra-terrestrials who as the progenitors of indigenous peoples cannot by definition be white or “Aryan.” [28]
These claims are so outlandish that up until recently, mainstream archaeologists essentially ignored them as absurdities
Did you intentionally mean to imply that indigenous peoples' origin stories are outlandish? Then doesn't that implication just further demonstrate “Indigenous erasure"? There are probably at least some cultural anthropologists who would disagree with the notion that these claims are outlandish. They might not be "factual", but that does not give license to de-value them . Perhaps more measured language is needed here. TPleft (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TPleft, I've relocated the text. The reason that I moved it into the body is because the purpose of the lead is to summarize the key points of the body of the article, not to introduce new information that isn't mentioned later. You can learn more about the Wikipedia approach at WP:LEAD and WP:Lead dos and don'ts. Cheers! Schazjmd(talk)21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cat yronwode
I have no reason to be contentious, but I would like direction as to why you deleted my link from cat yronwode's Wikipedia web page to her business and research web page (Lucky Mojo Co.). Billfish (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that discussion page about why no one is allowed to mention 17 Again was Matthew's final film role all because of Rowing007 you agreed with. I know I had to confirm that it is 100% relevant that the film was his last and several users attempted to put back but Rowing kept removing it. I also tried to confront him but one of the admins Ivanvector tried to escalate me if I continue to make useless threats. Another admin Bsoyka also left me that nothing is allowed and I don't know how. This discussion has to end and confirm it that the film was his last. If not, God won't forgive me. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any reliable sources that draw attention to 17 Again being Perry's final film role? The film was made so long before his death that it really seems like meaningless trivia. Anyone interested in knowing what his final film role was can check his filmography, but it isn't significant to the movie itself. The discussion at Talk:17_Again_(film)#Matthew_Perry's_final_film_appearancehas ended, and consensus is against including it. Schazjmd(talk)16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if you would kindly click on the link in the citation I provided (linked here for your convenience), you will see that the inscription on the album cover specifically says: "'DON'T DRINK THE ORANGE JUICE' was written and recorded on March 25th - the natal day of Ms. O.J." OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the images makes it impossible to actually read the text, so I'll take your word for it. When you re-add the text, please note that in the prose: instead of "written and recorded on her birthday", say something like "which an inscription on the cover says was written and recorded on her birthday". Schazjmd(talk)19:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the attribution per your request. For future reference, if you open the webpage on your computer, you can right-click on the image to open a higher-resolution version in a separate tab, which is more readable. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to send you a higher resolution version if you would like - simply let me know. I have the higher resolution version downloaded. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the section[1] (p. 42-44) as implying he had German ancestry. The passage begins "Many German-speaking Jewish and non-Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution came to southern California, as well as to New York... Although a number returned to Europe after the war, many stayed and made important contributions to the arts and the intellectual life of the region... There are numerous other examples of German contributions to Hollywood and also to Broadway." All persons mentioned in the section were either born in German-speaking Europe, as can be ascertained from their Wikipedia articles: Bertolt Brecht, Lion Feuchtwanger, Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, Alma Mahler, Franz Werfel, Frederick Loewe, Felix Salten, and Friedrich Gerstäcker, or were descendants of Germans/German-speaking Jews: Walt Disney[2], Gene Kelly[3], Alan Jay Lerner (couldn't find anything about his ancestry, but he had a German/Jewish surname)[4], Richard Rodgers[5], and Oscar Hammerstein II[6]. Now, it would be wierd mentioning Robert Wise in this section which claims "There are numerous other examples of German contributions to Hollywood and also to Broadway", and then goes on to mention exactly that if Wise didn't actually have German ancestry, which he obviously did (his mother's name was Longenecker). Wise's featured IMDB biography states "His parents were both of Pennsylvania Dutch (German) descent."[7]. This claim has been repeated on a few potentially unreliable websites[8][9] The IMDB biography was written by a Lukas Fichtinger of HTL Braunau [de]. I haven't been able to verify the claim of Wise's Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. I sent a message to the contact address mentioned in the IMDB biography, but it didn't deliver: Host or domain name not found. I believe the claim might come from the book "Robert Wise: A Bio-Bibliography"[10], though I haven't been able to verify this either. What are your thoughts? Endebyrd (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting the lead to the previous paragraph. The paragraph that mentions Wise says:
"The export of Broadway and Hollywood products, especially to Europe, is well known. One of the most interesting examples of this is the Sound of Music phenomenon."
It then goes on to mention the two versions of The Sound of Music. I don't the context is clear enough to assume every name mentioned in that pdf has German ancestry. IMDB is not a reliable source. And please don't ever consider "it's a German name" as evidence of ancestry. If you check that book and find content supporting his various ancestries, great. Schazjmd(talk)00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware IMDB isn't a reliable source, I mentioned it for context. It was the only direct claim of German ancestry i could find online, but as it's origins remains unclear, I agree that more research is needed to confirm or deny the claim. Endebyrd (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"How German Is American?"(PDF). mki.wisc.edu. Max Kade Institute for German-American Studies. 2005. Retrieved January 22, 2024.
^"Rodgers & Hammerstein: A to Z". Charlotte Symphony Orchestra. March 1, 2019. Richard Rodgers was born into a prosperous German Jewish family in Arverne, Queens.
I am removing your comment that a reference I cited failed verification. Before adding your comment again, I ask that you please elaborate on why you flagged the following statement in the draft article as having failed verification: "The term "Collective General Intelligence" platform originated in 2018 with behavioral scientist Johannes Castner.[failed verification]". The reference provided clearly identifies the researcher's use of the term, and a search of the literature on Google Scholar does not reveal any earlier uses of the term within the same context. CognitiveMMA (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that you have done the thing of making the changes, I recognize and will not discuss what could have been given as speculation on my part, however you are not being impartial.
On the Internet there are hundreds of memes echoing that situation, also on YouTube, millions of views on the videos where he states without arguments or evidence, and only because his grandmother said it, that no matter what others said (just as the quote ) Cleopatra was black, even though she herself says that they do not know the queen's race, I will reissue the correct wording with greater seriousness and more effort and with another quote.
It is not a direct attack on her, it is a part of what was made known, as I said there are thousands of videos with millions of views of her comments, which surpass her works, therefore it is a situation that must be commented on, and therefore I will not stop, I am not speaking without evidence, I am arguing and presenting references.
Good Day Dericiana (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dericiana, memes are not a significant item worth mentioning in an article about a person unless independent reliable sources have given attention to them. Same with YouTube videos. Your edits to the article must only summarize what reliable sources have written, and your summary must be a neutral reflection of what the source says. Schazjmd(talk)22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete something just because you don't like it, if it is referenced and with evidence
Memes have become part of popular culture and Wikipedia has also allowed them. A great example is the case of Natalia Poklonskaya, where she has a whole section about it on Wikipedia.
Now the clip is conclusive proof, it is not invented, she appears in that video and her words are literal without interpretations, she is not putting herself out of place, because part of what is explained about her participation in the program from Netflix Dericiana (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dericiana, I'm afraid you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are multiple sources writing about Poklonskaya's internet "celebrity", that gives it significance worth mentioning in her article. I am not denying and the sources are not denying that she said that sentence. The sources also place it in the greater context of the full documentary, and that's what our article should summarize. You'll also notice that in the edited clip, she doesn't say she believed it; all she says is her grandmother told her that. So what? Please stick to what the sources say. Schazjmd(talk)22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do I have to put the episode on Netflix? Because she says it literally. But tell me, do you reverse it because you have a preference towards her? That is not very neutral, I am not attacking her, I am not offending her, I AM NOT LYING, but you only revert because you want to hide the truth, I am no longer saying that it is a meme, nor that her null objectivity is in doubt when There are dozens of videos of historians who question their objectivity, I only write what is true, explain to me why you can choose the words that should be put Dericiana (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dericiana, nobody is disputing that she said it. The article already states that she said her grandmother told her that. To say she "literally" said it is redundant. To say that she said it "without arguments" is false; that is not the entirety of what she said about Cleopatra's ethnic background in the documentary, as the WaPo source covers. For your other question, I've never heard of Haley outside of watching the article, I've not seen the documentary, and I have no interest in Cleopatra's ethnic background. Schazjmd(talk)23:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in continuing with this, I am not an Internet Troll nor do I follow a political current like you, I will stop editing, but I was clear when I said that I would not stop, I will do my work on other pages contributing, such as for example I will quote Halley on the wikipedia meme page, and also on the Cleopatra race discussion, I have 20 pages in view, if you're looking to undo my changes on all of them, good luck, but I have the sources and evidence plus make my changes. Good day Dericiana (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no, unlike you, who obviously pursue a politically correct goal and that clouds your impartiality, I am not a supporter of a political goal, I am not a supremacist who wants to offend people because of their gender, preference or ethnicity, I I publish and edit, in terms of truth I see no difference between Hitler and Anne Frank, well that is impartiality, if someone said that Halley is a murderer, they will edit it, well obviously if there is no evidence it is a lie. Dericiana (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow Editor Not Cooperating
I've been on an "editing war" with Adam Cuerden he insists that his off center image be on Theodore Roosevelt's bio template. When I asked him to fix it he did not. So I removed the image and added a centered one. He then removed it again. I need an administrator to block his use of Theodore Roosevelt's wiki page since he adamantly will not cooperate. Please help resolve this issue. Thanks Simmons1998 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the change on Wizkid's article. But I didn't misqoute, the Vanguard article qoutes he was honoured based on 'his achievements in music which has inspired Minnesotans and fans from all over the world, and his role as one of the biggest cultural influencers ever.' About the case study thing, I'm sorry I didn't check whether the University was mentioned, cuz I've heard about it before. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yotrages: you did misquote it. Mark Dayton didn't declare such thing, as you reported, the magazine Vanguard did. Please stop misquoting, you've been warned at least 20 times in the last week. What more do you need to stop doing that? DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DollysOnMyMind: I have been warned of that only by two editors, stop the hyperbole about 20 times. And how am I to know whether Vanguard is writing on their own, when they're quoting the Governor per the article? So it wasn't really my fault, it was Vanguard's. You could have just trimmed and corrected the error like Schazjmd did, but you choosed to delete it, that's why we're not friends. Yotrages (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been warned of thatonly by two editors — that should be more than enough to stop doing such thing, but apparently, it's not. And by the way, more than two editors warned you for that, and the times you've been warned about it is about 20 times. Do you want me to mention them all? I will be glad to do so if you ask me to do such thing DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that with these edits (1, 2) by Nigerian IPs, Yotrages Is voluntarily abusing of multiple accounts. I would like to have your opinion on this. To me it's an unacceptable behavior DollysOnMyMind (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DollysOnMyMind, the first edit seems to clearly be Yotrages. The second is ambiguous; the edit summary might be the honest opinion of a third party or it might be Yotrages trying to make it seem that the IP is not Yotrages. Editing while logged out isn't strictly forbidden, it just depends on how you edit while you're logged out. You could add those edits to your ANI report. Schazjmd(talk)20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very absurd, this is one of the most humiliating things I've ever been accused of. Did you think I'm crazy, that I'll edit and still warn myself to work things out with you? Accusing me of those 2 IP's cuz you traced they're from Nigeria doesn't mean I own them!! My IP address is 105.115.1.25 so it's different from them, and I've never used it to edit (you can cross check). The articles are for Nigerian artists, so Nigerian IP's are going to edit it. Per your logic, I can accuse you of using any South African IP's that edit on Wikipedia. The second case @DollysOnMyMind: removed a content that an RFC has been reached for [9], which is bad and can deprive him of editing privilege. The third case is that, he has been adding rubbish, unnecessary and unreliable content to Chris Brown's article. Using Justin Bieber as a critics, and calling me a troll on his talk page, while reverting me and other editors on the page. Yotrages (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DollysOnMyMind reverting everything you dont like on Wikipedia, is not a good way of editing. That IP has edited Rema's page a day before I saw it. After checking both the opinion on the RFC and his or her trims, I closed the RFC. But you deleted it to the way you wanted, even though other editors opined it must be trimmed to a paragraph. You really need to change. I don't care how much time you reported those stupid things you're documenting, cuz lots of them is you accusing me of what I didn't do, like saying I sneakily deleted Schazjmd reply, in which I apologized and told him what happen. I just don't have many time to discuss with you, cuz I got things to do, than arguing about little stuffs like this. Yotrages (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you need to reconsider your approaches to editing on wikipedia. My advice: @Yotrages:, you need to pay closer attention to what sources actually say, summarize them fairly and accurately, and discuss calmly and civilly on article talk pages when another editor disagrees. @DollysOnMyMind:, you need to stop personalizing these disputes; your "dummy" edit just to snipe at Yotrages in the edit summary is not constructive. Stay off each other's talk pages; stick to content- and source-based discussions on article talk pages so other editors can participate.
Sometimes, even when you're sure that you're correct, other editors are going to disagree. You won't always get your way in content disputes. You need to find constructive ways to deal with that.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP noticeboard on Grover Furr
Hi Schazjmd. I'm really sorry to bother you, but I didn't fully understand your comment on the Grover Furr thread. I don't fully understand what text should be taken out. Sorry again and thank you for your time.Stix1776 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history,...
My suggestion at RSN was:
Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history,...
However, I see that there is an active discussion at Talk:Grover Furr about the lead, so the editors more familiar with the article and already involved in that discussion should reach consensus on what to do. Schazjmd(talk)14:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your input. I appreciate all your effort.
Are you sure about this closure? The editor has, so far, been non-responsive. They've been invited to ANI, and then blocked from editing the article to further encourage them to communicate. And you've shut down the thread very quickly, discouraging them from communicating. That seems sub-optimal to me. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His relationship with her is already mentioned and sourced in the personal relationships section, adding another section to say the same thing is redundant and WP:UNDUE. You cited Page Six, which is considered generally unreliable (WP:PAGESIX). You added wikilinks to section headings which is not allowed. You added unsourced content, including claims of ephebophilia without a reliable source. Please also see the warning banner when you view the source for Brad Pitt or any other BLP:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.
i added new sources, can you verify again? also, by definition the age gap is ephebophilic. that would be like if a 20 year old man dated a 2 year old baby and i had to source how that was pedophilic.
> "adding another section to say the same thing is redundant"
is it? the heading there was about ephebophilia, not lewis. that definitely warrants its own heading and is a very serious, damning thing.
> wikilinks to section headings which is not allowed; You cited Page Six, which is considered generally unreliable (WP:PAGESIX).
i was unfamiliar with this, thank you
> Please also see the warning banner when you view the source for Brad Pitt or any other BLP:
right, well i added new sources but was unfamiliar with the procedures so can you verify again? also, by definition the age gap is ephebophilic. that would be like if a 20 year old man dated a 2 year old baby and i had to source how that was pedophilic. it, by its nature, is. the only thing i need to prove here is that he was 27 and she was 17, that is widely publicised public information, which needs its own heading. if youre expecting me to find an article where he admits he's an ephebophile not only would that be impossible but redundant, it is self-evident and thus not libel. are you trying to suggest their dating was exclusively platonic??? NotQualified (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need a high-quality source that explicitly connects Pitt with ephebophilia. You cannot apply a contentious label to a BLP without a reliable source. If you believe that it is self-evident based solely on ages at the time that they dated, you're welcome to start a discussion at Talk:Brad Pitt and see if you get consensus among other editors that the label can be added without any reliable sources describing their relationship that way. Schazjmd(talk)14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Chatterjee, for whom , you credited a Ph.d in Management has no Ph.D in Management. He is the boss of his institute where he has claimed / wrongfully written that he has a Ph.D in Management.
please check this information with University of Pune from where he has got a Ph.D in Psychology/ humanities and correct the information. Ask for the ph.d certificate from Chatterjee for verification (he can show this posting online).
I'm telling you, I'm not adding information from myself, I'm just returning the version of the article to the one that was before the user Auzandil. There is no contribution on my part so that I give them sources, I return an article written from the attached sources, which was consensual for a long time and satisfied everyone until an expert in the field of all languages appeared AuzandilArtem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem Petrov CHV, when an editor brings sources and suggested changes to an article, if you want to object to them, then you need to engage with their comments. It's not enough to simply state that's how the article was before. What sources do you have that counter the ones they're citing? Is there a problem with their sources? These are questions you need to address in that talk page discussion. If you don't want to discuss the reliability of their sources and their summary of what those sources say, then don't revert their edits. Schazjmd(talk)21:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had to do it manually because of subsequent edits, so please feel free to make any corrections to my edit if there are any problems with it, thanks. Schazjmd(talk)18:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
I'm afraid an internal email can't be used as a source. We'll just have to wait until there's a public announcement or business journalism writes about it. Sorry! Schazjmd(talk)15:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Greek Source and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm guessing that you're interested in turning User:67.84.25.17/sandbox into an article, correct? What you should do is start a draft at Draft:Oōficus Lmåoskï and then submit it. Unfortunately, I've had to remove two paragraphs from that sandbox because it violates copyright, since it's copy-and-pasted from this site. Content in articles must be in the editor's own words, except for direct quotes (which are attributed and sourced). I'll put an educational template on your talk page that gives more explanation. Hope that helps! Schazjmd(talk)19:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Apologies
Hello, @Schazjmd. I hope you are well. I did not look into the In lulz we trust article further. Thus, I was under the assumption that the person behind the IP address 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E was vandalizing the page. Thank you for understanding. A Proud Alabamian (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Please sig + timestamp whenever you collapse text on the noticeboards (and in general for that matter), just so it's clear to anyone who collapsed what when. Thanks and best wishes.
On the Birds Aren't Real article, you reverted my edit as "Good faith". I've googled everywhere I can, and I can't figure out how to tag something as "Reverted good faith edits by [Whoever]", so I've decided to ask. How did you do it?
Hi @SqueakSquawk4! Being able to "roll back a good-faith edit" is an option that you'll see if you activate WP:TWINKLE. Twinkle is an awesome tool. For example, in the settings, you can configure it so that when you revert an edit, it will automatically open that editor's talk page and give you a menu of warnings to post. It has drop-down options for reporting edit-warring and vandalism. It can add pages you edit to your watchlist automatically. Plus a bunch of other stuff. Anyway, if you activate twinkle, then when you view the latest edit, you get three options: rollback (AGF), rollback, and rollback (vandalism). That last one does a revert without requiring you to explain why in an edit summary. I like rollback (AGF) when it's clear the editor is trying to improve an article but there's some sort of problem with the edit. Give it a try! I wouldn't want to go back to editing without it. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Hope that helps! Schazjmd(talk)22:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Excellent508 and welcome! You can view your contributions here (also the Contributions link at the top of every page). Unfortunately, the only edit I see that you've made is this one to my talk page. If you were working on something and it's not visible in your contributions, that means that it was deleted. However, I didn't see any deletion notifications on your talk page, which would typically happen. Are you sure you were working on it while logged in on this account? Schazjmd(talk)16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
