Inspector Gordgit (talk | contribs) →What gives?: new section Tag: Reverted |
|||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
I think we've reached a consensus on the page. I left your edits, but added more verbiage/citations around the subjects writing and appearance work. Thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Speckle11b|Speckle11b]] ([[User talk:Speckle11b#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Speckle11b|contribs]]) 20:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I think we've reached a consensus on the page. I left your edits, but added more verbiage/citations around the subjects writing and appearance work. Thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Speckle11b|Speckle11b]] ([[User talk:Speckle11b#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Speckle11b|contribs]]) 20:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:{{u|Speckle11b}}, you need to sign and indent your comments per [[WP:TPG]]. You also need to disclose your '''conflict of interest''' and stop editing the page as per the information left by another editor on your talk page. – [[User:Wallyfromdilbert|wallyfromdilbert]] ([[User talk:Wallyfromdilbert|talk]]) 20:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC) |
:{{u|Speckle11b}}, you need to sign and indent your comments per [[WP:TPG]]. You also need to disclose your '''conflict of interest''' and stop editing the page as per the information left by another editor on your talk page. – [[User:Wallyfromdilbert|wallyfromdilbert]] ([[User talk:Wallyfromdilbert|talk]]) 20:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
== What gives? == |
|||
Why are you protecting child abusers? Whatever your motives for sock hunting over this particular issue, I suggest you ask yourself if it will reflect poorly on you when the whole thing breaks wide open. Or is that your purpose here? Trying to hide one of Wikipedia's more ridiculous editorial positions? I'll throw you a lifeline and ask you to lay your cards in the table. You are in the record. Putting aside any Wikipedia notions of verfiability, in your personal view, using your own eyes and ears, is this man guilty? In percentage terms, how likely are you to recommend him as a tutor to a child? Answer as a normal functioning human, and one that lives by the editorial codes of Wikipedia. If indeed, you think there is a difference. [[User:Inspector Gordgit|Inspector Gordgit]] ([[User talk:Inspector Gordgit|talk]]) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:53, 18 June 2021
|
|||
Precious anniversary
One year! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!!
Hi Wally! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do, especially in helping with bios and at BLPN. Your arguments are usually very compelling and I think the work you do there is invaluable. May you have a Merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate, and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zaereth! That means a lot coming from someone I admire as much as you, and I thank you for your work on BLP as well. I have learned and will continue to learn a lot from you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Pastor Troy Page
I am Pastor Troy's representative. I am working to position the content in a way that is not editorialized or citing gossip/uncredible/opinion sites. Using terms such as "homoophobic" are opinion based conclusions and understand that including the content on his page is warranted but should be positioned in a constructive and non-opinionated voice. It also does not need to be cited in multiple place on the page. Can we work together to do that? The first way I had it seemed to be in that voice, not sure what needed to be cited as it already was unless I broke the link.
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Acalipeach, in my opinion, your edits have been disruptive and not constructive at all. All you try to do is to remove the crap Paster Troy did. The metarial stated at his page is sourced enough so no need to bluntly remove it nor state it as you did (pretty much delete it all). And no his homophobic rant was not an opinion.Garnhami (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Acalipeach, you should review the information I just posted to your information about conflicts of interest and follow those procedures. You should not be removing sourced content from articles simply because you disagree with it. The most appropriate place to discuss the issue further would be on the article's talk page: Talk:Pastor Troy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wallyfrodillbert I appreciate your response. Your commentary has the potential to validate that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it relies on emotional and opinionated writers. You seem to be focused on creating a specific narrative and not about constructive, valid writing skills that articulate in a way for readers to decide for themsleves how they should percieve/digest a profile/story. Your mention of "the crap that he has done" demonstrates that either Wikipedia is just another source of "journalism" that relies on writers that reflect the fake, destructive culture of today or you have slipped through their vetting cracks (if they actually vet). I was asking for your suggestions on how to create an unopinionated view point, keeping the context of the history, but instead you went down an emotional wormhole. You can have it. Hopefully, if Wikipedia is really trying to create a modality/source of valid information, they will either pick up on the type of "writer" you are or someone will report it...I, do not have the time or inclination to follow up on this, I understand that the truth always prevails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Considering you claim to be "Pastor Troy's representative", you need to follow the policies at WP:COI, about which I also left a comment on your talk page. You should probably also read the comments to which you are responding more carefully, considering I never mentioned "crap that he has done". Regardless, you should not be editing that article to repeatedly remove sourced content especially when your removals have been reverted by multiple other editors. I would suggest you follow the instructions for individuals with conflicts of interest and then take your concerns to the article's talk page to see what other interested editors have to say: Talk:Pastor Troy. Please also read WP:NPA and avoid my talk page in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Logan Lucky
Please see Talk:Logan_Lucky#Identity_of_the_writer. -- 109.76.215.235 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Last Week Tonight and Narendra Modi
So I should then make a separate Wikipedia page called "List of rebuttals of Last Week Tonight by John Oliver" and place this content over there and then link this new Wikipedia page to [Week Tonight with John Oliver] , that will sort your issues out. Good Day, Ranamode (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Can one copy and paste tables from one place to another?
- Ranamode, the issue is not where you are putting the information, it is the fact that the information is undue and original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- wallyfromdilbert I'll like to clear out some misconceptions. This is not original research as I took the information mentioned in the video of Sham Sharma and added sources based on the assumption that other editors will say that the statements by Sham Sharma were inaccurate. On other words, the statements were from a source mentioning John Oliver's show directly and the extra citations were as back-up. I didn't realise this would be confused as original research. The best thing to do would be to remove the extra citations. On the other hand, how is it undue? If you are talking about this article only to mention John Oliver's arguments then it's undue, othrwise it should be fair to state opposing views. Ranamode (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ranamode, WP:DUE says, "
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
" Self-published videos released by a person on Youtube are not reliable sources (see WP:RSPYT), and the independent sources you added do not mention Last Week Tonight. If reliable sources discuss Last Week Tonight to criticize the segment, then those would be appropriate to add. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ranamode, WP:DUE says, "
- wallyfromdilbert I'll like to clear out some misconceptions. This is not original research as I took the information mentioned in the video of Sham Sharma and added sources based on the assumption that other editors will say that the statements by Sham Sharma were inaccurate. On other words, the statements were from a source mentioning John Oliver's show directly and the extra citations were as back-up. I didn't realise this would be confused as original research. The best thing to do would be to remove the extra citations. On the other hand, how is it undue? If you are talking about this article only to mention John Oliver's arguments then it's undue, othrwise it should be fair to state opposing views. Ranamode (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
3RR at Jamie Raskin
Hello Wallyfromdilbert,
Do I really need to issue you a formal warning about warring on Jamie Raskin? X4n6 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- X4n6, considering you are brand new to the article, it would be nice if you could contribute to the article's talk page before putting in additional section headers contrary to the guideline at WP:OVERSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
ANI notice from X4n6
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Coon cheese
I can add references to supporting literature ... fair enough. But how do you feel it is irrelevant to go beyond Australian instances for context and also describe very similar cases elsewhere that happened even earlier for names in use much longer? I want to understand. Is there a middle ground we can work on? Betterkeks (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Betterkeks, there are certainly many examples of similar cases of name changes elsewhere in the world, but the article in question is about Coon cheese. I would not object to including the first part of the sentence you added, "Internationally, products have been rebranded for similar reasons" (or incorporating that into the previous sentence about other Australian companies). However, I don't think the details about a specific case in Germany or one in Hungary are particularly relevant. If you add sources that discuss some connection between actions taken in Germany or Hungary and those in Australia, that would be more relevant because we could simply state the connection made by those sources. If you want to continue this discussion, we should head over to the article's talk page so that other interested editors can be aware of the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Queen's Gambit (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Into The SpiderVerse
Oh, thank you! I had no idea! 👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeronilol (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Please take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I won’t edit it again so revert back if you will and I agree I haven’t cited it properly, but I wasn’t making that up. He just interviewed on that show so I’m not the one saying he’s a former* civil rights activist. Cheers to you, and be well Junco404 (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Junco404, I already left a message on your talk page about this, and so free to respond there to keep the conversation in one place. We can also move the discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can be aware of it. Let me know if you need any help. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Sad
Bored and decided to hinder someone's work? Stop making disruptive changes on the page that is in the process of an expansion. ภץאคгöร 21:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please use the article's talk page to discuss your changes. You do not WP:OWN the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Carlos Maza citation
I sited newyork times but will try and cite it again better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensky75 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Greensky75, I appreciate you leaving this message to me, but you have to actually cite a source that says Maza was fired. You cannot simply assume that, especially if the source does not even mention Maza. That is a form of original research. Also, lay-offs and other workforce reductions would not the same as being fired. If you would like to discuss the article further, we should move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other people are aware of the discussion: Talk:Carlos Maza. If you need any help, please let me know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
– bradv🍁 05:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking on the daunting clean-up at Christopher Massimine! Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Schazjmd! That means a lot because that was a headache! Hopefully the article is more manageable now, and at least it doesn't have the constant back-and-forth arguments in it anymore. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Possible Page Protection for Titanic (1997 film)
Hi Wallyfromdilbert. Since Jienum was blocked for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule on the article, Titanic (1997 film), I was considering the idea of protecting the page, Titanic (1997 film) so that Jienum would not engage in any more edit warring and would not violate the three-revert rule. What do you think of that? Hayleez (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there is enough disruption to the page to warrant requesting page protection. You can learn more about the page protection policy here: WP:PP. I also don't think the editor is going to return and continue with the same edits, but if they did, they could simply be blocked again or blocked from editing that particular page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit?
I noticed that you reverted my edit to Bobby Fischer. My edit was constructive. Please do not revert my edit again. Dro5soz (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Removing sourced content along with half of a link is obviously not constructive. Doing it a second time looks like intentional vandalism. If you have a reason to remove the information you are blanking from pages, then you need to explain them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
False accusations
Please do not falsley accuse me of vandalism. If you bothered to actually read Wikipidea's Manual of Style[1], you would know A Quiet Place Part II is a 2020 film––not a 2021 film. Please do not make this edit again, or I will report you. Please refer to the talk page to notice a majority fo people support the 2020 status. Also, refer to films such as Fantasia 2000, Thoroughbreds, Minari, Concrete Cowboy... the list goes on. You always put the year it was first shown, even if it was at a film festival. Just like IMDb does.
Please read WP:YEARSINFILM.
ScottSullivan1 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- ScottSullivan1, no one has accused you of vandalism from what I can see, unlike your incorrect hidden note that you put into the article about supposed "vandalism" here. I reverted you here because you edit is contrary to all the sources about the film. After that, another account, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was subsequently reverted by ClueBot for restoring your same edit [2]. Are you claiming to operate both of those accounts? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Robert Reich
https://slate.com/business/1996/10/economic-culture-wars.html If Robert Reich is considered to be an economist, then I'm a brain surgeon. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 22:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what relevance you think an opinion article in Slate has, but the content you are removing is cited to an article in The New York Times, and there are a dozen citations from major publications also on the talk page in the prior discussion about this. Please continue that discussion on the talk page, rather than starting new threads or trying to move the discussion to my user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article is from Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner for his work on international trade). The NYT article is about a new Netflix series. At most, Robert Reich is a quasi-Ha Joon-Chang, but without any degrees, or academic work. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Please continue the prior discussion on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not your personal opinion or original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article is from Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner for his work on international trade). The NYT article is about a new Netflix series. At most, Robert Reich is a quasi-Ha Joon-Chang, but without any degrees, or academic work. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Jim Sheridan
Thanks Wallyfromdilbert, I am Jim's Sheridan's daughter and I am only adding a missing name from my full name. Instead Clodagh Cherie Sheridan, I added my full name Ameerah Clodagh Cherie Sheridan, Many Thanks for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mano2035 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mano2035, your edit is not only adding a missing name, but makes several changes to the article [3]. However, all information on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources, and the names of non-notable family members needs to be widely published by reliable sources per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I have removed the content about Sheridan's children entirely because it was sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source for information. If you are Mr. Sheridan's daughter, then you probably should not be editing his page at all because you have a conflict of interest, which I left more information about on your talk page. If you want to talk page the article's content more, then we should do that on its talk page so that other editors are aware: Talk:Jim Sheridan. If you need any help, you can ask me or post a question to Wikipedia:Teahouse. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Vonny Sweetland
Hi, Why are you removing content from this page that is accurately cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckle11b (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speckle11b, the content you are adding is not "accurately cited", and you need to stop restoring your promotional material, which you are citing to blogs, opinion articles, and the article subject himself. You are also adding content that is not supported by the sources you are citing for it at all. You need to be citing content to reliable sources that directly support the content you are adding. You also need to disclose if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, especially sine you have made no edits to any other articles since your account was created. Also, please follow the guidelines at WP:TPG so that you can properly sign and indent your comments, and you should not be signing comments with my name as you did here. If you want to discuss the article content more, we should do so at Talk:Vonny Sweetland, rather than my personal user page, as more editors will be aware of the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to accurately "TAG" you on the talk page. That's why I am messaging you here.
I think we've reached a consensus on the page. I left your edits, but added more verbiage/citations around the subjects writing and appearance work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckle11b (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speckle11b, you need to sign and indent your comments per WP:TPG. You also need to disclose your conflict of interest and stop editing the page as per the information left by another editor on your talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
What gives?
Why are you protecting child abusers? Whatever your motives for sock hunting over this particular issue, I suggest you ask yourself if it will reflect poorly on you when the whole thing breaks wide open. Or is that your purpose here? Trying to hide one of Wikipedia's more ridiculous editorial positions? I'll throw you a lifeline and ask you to lay your cards in the table. You are in the record. Putting aside any Wikipedia notions of verfiability, in your personal view, using your own eyes and ears, is this man guilty? In percentage terms, how likely are you to recommend him as a tutor to a child? Answer as a normal functioning human, and one that lives by the editorial codes of Wikipedia. If indeed, you think there is a difference. Inspector Gordgit (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)