CerroFerro (talk | contribs) →AI editing: Reply Tag: Reply |
Selfstudier (talk | contribs) →AI editing: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:Joanne Laurier of WSWS has in effect stated that "2 + 2 = 4" The quote she cited in her article has been retained as a suitable box quote, but the Wikipedia Establishment refuses to allow her to be the messenger for a statement from film director Darin J. Sallam. Instead, you defend deleting the ref and replacing it with a ref that has a history of red-baiting and anti-communism during the [[McCarthyism|McCarthyite]] witch hunts. [[The Hollywood Reporter]]. You falsely claimed that the WSWS was "additional" - you know it was not. |
:Joanne Laurier of WSWS has in effect stated that "2 + 2 = 4" The quote she cited in her article has been retained as a suitable box quote, but the Wikipedia Establishment refuses to allow her to be the messenger for a statement from film director Darin J. Sallam. Instead, you defend deleting the ref and replacing it with a ref that has a history of red-baiting and anti-communism during the [[McCarthyism|McCarthyite]] witch hunts. [[The Hollywood Reporter]]. You falsely claimed that the WSWS was "additional" - you know it was not. |
||
:As usual, the tactic is to issue a threat that an editor is in "breach", and liable to being censored i.e., blocked from Wikipedia. Utterly unprincipled and, I regret to say, rather cowardly. [[User:CerroFerro|CerroFerro]] ([[User talk:CerroFerro#top|talk]]) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
:As usual, the tactic is to issue a threat that an editor is in "breach", and liable to being censored i.e., blocked from Wikipedia. Utterly unprincipled and, I regret to say, rather cowardly. [[User:CerroFerro|CerroFerro]] ([[User talk:CerroFerro#top|talk]]) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::You are now in clear breach of 1R after awareness notification and on the verge of breaking 3R, kindly self revert immediately. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:02, 4 January 2023
BRD
I just declined your 3O request, as there is no discussion yet on the talk page. I just wanted to note that the one of the golden standards of discussion on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When one editor reverts, it's best practice for the initial bold editor to start a discussion. Feel free to re-request a third opinion after discussion on the talk page is stuck. Femke (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Provide me with the message you reverted from thrid opinion request. Just post it here. I'll post that on the talk page. CerroFerro (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind. I just relocated it. --CerroFerro (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the other editor does not respond (be sure to ping them), consider the advice given at WP:DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (another 3O volunteer)
- No need for that, Transporterman: this article is closely guarded. Editors User:Modernist and User:Coldcreation are also monitoring the page.--CerroFerro (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, good day from this end... I have added uncategorized tag on the said article. Do well to add some categories to it. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The Laughing Monsters
Hi @CerroFerro: How goes it? I reviewed the article you updated. Great work!! I wonder if you could return and fix the sources section by putting in proper full cites. The way to do it create the citation and then remove the ref tags, leaving the bare citation. Please take a look at WP:REFB, its a wee tutorial that shows you how to create a citation. You basically and copy a paste and it creates it for you, from cite button at the top here. Hope that helps. I'll fire up a bare url tag until their fixed. Its a great article and would be a shame not see proper citations. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Scope Creep: In future, I shall use the format you suggested. Best Wishes. --CerroFerro (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- On second thought...I attempted to use the formatting you suggested. I find the whole process clumsy and error prone. The one I've used traditionally provides all the source information and more that the wp:REFB offers, without eliciting error notices, with perfect clarity. What say you? --CerroFerro (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- User:Scope creep: The Wp:REFB offered the template format in this form:
{{cite news}}
: Empty citation (help).
I found it difficult to insert the data. I reformatted it this way.
{{cite news}}
: Empty citation (help).
Still getting errors. Not sure why.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is about 14 citation types or maybe more. Take a look at WP:CS. It has the layouts for you. The cite button in the editor window above is how you access it. It opens a dialog and you fill it in. There is one for news, one for books, one for web, one for citing thesis, one for citing AV recording and so on, different depending on what you need to cite. I'm not seeing any errors. scope_creepTalk 17:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Ways to improve The Hours After Noon
Hello, CerroFerro,
Thank you for creating The Hours After Noon.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thanks for this article! I'm tagging a too long plot, it's poorly written IMHO and far too lengthy. This probably meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, though I'm unsure how long the Ditsky one is.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
VickKiang (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- User:VickKiang: When I consider a Plot summary to be overly long, I rewrite the section myself, then submit it to the editor who wrote the original section for his/her consideration. See User talk:Οἶδα for a recent example of this approach. --CerroFerro (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. Just pointing out that per MOS:PLOT,
WP:Manual of Style/Film § Plot suggests that plot summaries for feature films be between 400 and 700 words
. Your plot overview is unfortunately 1100+ words, which is definitely a bit too long. I know this isn't for books specifically but still is applicable. Based on the edit history, I see another editor have tried to rv the long plot additions. Again, this is a comparatively minor suggestion that won't have many impacts (I'm only unsure whether the second book ref is long enough) unless this article is going to be a B or GA class one. VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. Just pointing out that per MOS:PLOT,
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Train Dreams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Wallace.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Question for The Garden (short story)
For The Garden (short story), as I can't access the offline refs while reviewing, if it is possible could you tell me how long is the Ditsky 1986 ref? Many thanks! VickKiang 22:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Ways to improve The Garden (short story)
Hello, CerroFerro,
Thank you for creating The Garden (short story).
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thanks for the article! On your talk page, I've opened a new discussion on how long the Ditsky ref is, as there are currently just two refs, with the Hibbard ref being quite long, but I'm unsure how long the Ditsky ref is. If it turns out that the Ditsky ref is one page or more of non-trivial coverage, I'll remove this notability tag and mark this as reviewed, as two in-depth, significant, reliable sources are usually needed to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
VickKiang 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Vicki - DO NOT continue this discussion on my Talk page. Go to the Talk Page for The Garden (short story). --CerroFerro (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is just automatic because of the Page Curation tool. Apologies if this has left you frustrated, I will not notify you here for future reviews. VickKiang 21:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
=
AI editing
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You are currently in breach of the 1R rule for these articles at Farha (film). Since you have not in the past received an awareness notification, I have filed one above. Edit warring against consensus is not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict per se, and I think you know it. The question is whether a simple citation from the WSWS can be deleted for unstated reasons based on "consensus". This is a fundamental question of principle, not opinion.
- If you wish to find a forum that believes that Trump won the 2020 presidential election, no doubt you can find "consensus" on the matter.
- Joanne Laurier of WSWS has in effect stated that "2 + 2 = 4" The quote she cited in her article has been retained as a suitable box quote, but the Wikipedia Establishment refuses to allow her to be the messenger for a statement from film director Darin J. Sallam. Instead, you defend deleting the ref and replacing it with a ref that has a history of red-baiting and anti-communism during the McCarthyite witch hunts. The Hollywood Reporter. You falsely claimed that the WSWS was "additional" - you know it was not.
- As usual, the tactic is to issue a threat that an editor is in "breach", and liable to being censored i.e., blocked from Wikipedia. Utterly unprincipled and, I regret to say, rather cowardly. CerroFerro (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- You are now in clear breach of 1R after awareness notification and on the verge of breaking 3R, kindly self revert immediately. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)