User talk:Amccann421/Archive/April 2016

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, 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. Katie^talk 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Running Man episodes

Hi, thanks for your offer. The particular editor appears to have quietened down for the moment. Hopefully he/she will stay away. Again, thanks. Denisarona (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

your edit

You have confused anger with irritation. I supplied a source for my edit, namely, Harry Williams masterful biography on Huey Long. You have accused me of not assuming good faith. This is incorrect. I am, however, of the belief that rather than contact me, or actually look up the source, you took what I perceive to be the lazy way out and deleted the post.

You did not flag the post, saying "pending review/moderation," etc. You also have completely ignored that when I posted the subsequent edit, I pointed out that the very article that presently passes muster for publication contains a definition it attributes to Webster, which is an incomplete and therefore misleading definition.

Your qualifications indicate that you are in college. For what, I do not know. However, if one studies political science, or debate, one would have more concern for the accuracy of what I have submitted and less concern for apparently hurt feelings. This is not personal. It is about getting it right, and the phrase "demagogue" is in fact slung around frequently by those who do not know its correct use. It is not a personal attack to say, "I disagree," or "You are wrong."

Furthermore, Wikipedia continues to hide behind user un-friendly formats making prior communications with moderators a byzantine mystery. I do not have a degree in library science, nor do I want one. I do, however, know a thing or two about the scholarship in question and if it is the policy of Wikipedia to be scholastic, it should be their policy to teach as well as to judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.223.220 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC) April 21, 201698.16.223.220 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, @98.16.223.220:.

First of all, while yes, you did supply a source, you did not cite it properly. Simply referencing "Harry Williams masterful biography on Huey Long" is insufficient on Wikipedia. An inline citation is required. As you are new to Wikipedia, you should not be expected to know how to add inline citations. That, I admit, was a mistake on my part; I should have mentioned that in my post on your talk page. There is a learning curve here.

Second, the article in question was already tagged as having pending changes protection. Pending changes protection protects a page from vandalism or other disruptive edits while still allowing good faith edits from unregistered or new editors, yourself included. When a new or unregistered user makes an edit on a page with pending changes protection, their edit becomes a "pending change" (hence the name) until it is approved or disapproved by a reviewer like me. The pending edit is viewable in the page history, whether is approved or not. Also, registered users can see, at the top of the page, that there are pending edits, and, if they so choose, can view them. If the edit is approved, it goes public and becomes visible to anyone who visits the page. As a reviewer, I'm not required to flag any post that I am reviewing, and thus I did not, and usually don't.

Third, when I said that you had not assumed good faith, what I meant was that your edit seemed to criticize WQUlrich, the user who undid your first edit. As I see it, your first edit was meant to be constructive, and, upon its reversal, you lashed out a little bit. I don't mean that as any criticism of you, nor was I concerned about "hurt feelings." No, it is not a personal attack to say that you disagree. There are two options: the first is citing sources that support your opinion. The second is to discuss it on talk pages with other users in question, as we are doing here.

Fourth, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Listing the different definitions of a demagogue is what Wiktionary is for. However, showing different meanings of the word is applicable. We shouldn't just copy and paste or paraphrase the definitions, though.

Fifth, reverting an edit that is improperly cited is not the lazy way out – it is protocol. I'm glad you want to contribute. You obviously care about this topic, otherwise you wouldn't have made the edits. Wikipedia is all about collecting knowledge. I hope that you will resubmit the information, but it must be done properly. As I already mentioned, an inline citation to a reliable source (the Williams biography about Huey Long) is needed.

Sixth, I am not a political science or debate student – I am a journalism student. I agree with you: Wikipedia should aim to teach. However, we must provide sources. We are not here to publish our own material (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Rather, we are here to collect published, verifiable information and combine it into a digital encyclopedia.

Seventh, whether or not Wikipedia is user-friendly is not something I can change. I wish I could change some things, but life is not fair. I may be just a college student, but I am no fool to think otherwise.

Eighth and finally, I want to emphasize something I said in my fifth point. I hope you will still consider adding the information in question. This time you just need to do it a bit differently. If you would like a little help, I would be more than happy to help. You can also visit the help desk. I hope you'll consider creating an account, as it makes everything easier for you, me, and all other Wikipedians. Also, I hope I have made myself clear. I didn't mean insult you or your edit. I'm just trying to be frank and honest. Cheers. Amccann421 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

Lack of reliable source. In the Hydraulic Fracturing article the phrase "high pressure treating iron" was used with a {needs clarification} note. The phrase refers to the high pressure piping which serves to connect the high pressure/volume frac pumps to the wellhead, for further movement down the well and into the formation to be fractured. "high pressure treating iron" is the oilfield vernacular for that piping. I clarified it based on 40 years in the industry. gmlattimore Gmlattimore (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gmlattimore: Hi there! Unfortunately, "40 years in the industry" is not a reliable source. That is what we refer to as original research – the combination of facts, ideas, and personal experiences. I did not revert your edit because the information is wrong – I reverted it because personal experience is not a reliable, verifiable source. That's just the way we do things here on Wikipedia. Please don't feel bad, as you are new here. If the information is correct, then simply find a source or two that backs that up. If the information is correct and notable enough to have been written about, a simple Google search will likely provide sufficient sources. You can then re-add the information with the sources (learn how to cite sources here). If the information is correct but is not notable enough to have outside coverage, then it is not notable enough to include here on Wikipedia. I'm glad you asked for clarification. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Cheers. Amccann421 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RE:Elmhurst College

Hi Amccann421,

If you had read my edit to the Elmhurst collage you should have seen my references to the Elmhurst College Women's Studies program and the direct link of their women's only scholarship, referenced by Ltheir official scholarship and financial aid web page. I have not been able to locate any similar courses or financial aid that is targeted towards men in a similar way that their women's program is. In case I have missed any publicly available information, I have reached to the collage at their media contact email and have not received a response. My edit to the Elmhurst college Academics section is factually correct and the original edit included direct references to the source of the information. I do not understand why you would cite a non reference issue when there are 2 references within my 1 sentence edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IonkoG (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@IonkoG: Hi. Allow me to clarify. While you did cite sources, they were not cited correctly. In fact, the whole Elmhurst College article needs an overhaul, as none of the sources are cited properly. To correctly cite, you should use the <ref> and </ref> tags found at the bottom-right corner of the editing area. Put the reference in between those tags. A guide on citing can be found here. Also, when on talk pages, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~ Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for your confusion, but my understanding is that I citation is needed when "text that is either based on, or quoted from, an outside source" according to your own article link. Since my edit did not include a a statement but a direct reference to the college's own website and marketing material, it is more appropriate to link directly to said material. Again I offer you my apologies for not using he correct number of (tilde) ~ signs.

Thanks IonkoG (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@IonkoG: Your sources are fine, it's just the way they were inserted. A citation is needed because all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Without citations, information could be challenged as being made up and untrue. I have fixed the edits you made with the aforementioned <ref> and </ref> tags. Feel free to have a look here. Amccann421 (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Jason Molina from Oberlin College page

You have made a mistake by removing Jason Molina, who is a noted musician and Oberlin graduate:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/jason-molina-songs-ohia-magnolia-electric-co-secretly-canadian/Content?oid=15163643

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/arts/music/jason-molina-leader-of-magnolia-electric-band-dies-at-39.html?_r=0

http://oberlinconservatory.tumblr.com/post/45685521888/heres-jason-molina-oberlin-alum-and-lorain

There are endless articles about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzielou25 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzielou25: Done You are correct – he is notable, as he has his own article. I just assumed he was not notable since you did not link his article. My apologies. Amccann421 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit: When on talk pages, make sure to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Goodluck Jonathan removed

Hello, I recently edited Goodluck Jonathan, but I believe you made a mistake in misjudging my intention and therefore classified my edits as not constructive. However, all the edits I made were based on facts and were properly referenced. In addition, I chose my words carefully, for example, I used words like alleged for situations in which facts have not been rightly established. I wondered why you have decided to remove all the edits because all the sources I have cited are reliable. I would therefore appreciate it if you would approve all my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.14.22 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@109.158.14.22: Not done: Your sources are reliable, but that is not the issue at hand.

First of all, your edit makes the lead section far too long, and it does not belong there, either. The lead is meant to serve as an introduction to the article and briefly summarize it. Your edit would make much more sense in the "Controversies" section.

Second, your edit appears to be written like an essay. It uses what we call weasel words, such as "many have said" and "has largely been described."

Third, it expresses your personal opinion: "an arrest of Jonathan would be a real test of Buhari's fight against corruption, but, indeed it would be a big step towards eradicating impunity in the way Nigeria is governed." This is against our policies on neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability. Personal opinions are not to be expressed in Wikipedia articles.

Fourth, your edit goes against some of the policies specific to biographies of living persons, in particular presumption in favor of privacy. For a public figure in a controversy (such as Goodluck Jonathan), we must simply report what the sources say – we must not publish our own opinion.

In conclusion, if you remove the opinionated phrases and simply report what your sources are saying, then your edit may be useful in the aforementioned "Controversies" section of the article. Also, when on talk pages, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Cheers. Amccann421 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The last message you sent me

That was REALLY uncalled for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.44.205 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@79.167.44.205: No, it was most certainly not uncalled for. You have blanked the same page, August 7, 3 times, and appear to be ignoring myself and others when we warn you. I can see your contributions and will be watching closely. I will repeat my warning: if you vandalize again, you will be blocked. Amccann421 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Hi,

I recently tried to change this: Originally populated by the aboriginal Taíno people, the island was claimed in 1493 by Christopher Columbus for the Kingdom of Spain, enduring several invasion attempts by the French, Dutch, and British.

To This: Originally populated by the aboriginal Taíno people, the island was invaded in 1493 by Christopher Columbus for the Kingdom of Spain, enduring several invasion attempts by the French, Dutch, and British.

I was told that's not nuetral. I have to ask, why is it only an invasion if the French, Dutch or British attempt to do it?

Regards,

Jill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillboBaggins (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JillboBaggins: I don't know about neutrality, but it's also weaker in the content itself. Columbus didn't just invade, but as part of that he claimed the land (that is, took over rather than just establishing a beachhead or passing through). The original wording makes a clearer contrast between the effects of this conquest vs the other failed attempts. DMacks (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@JillboBaggins: Hi. "Claimed" is correct for a few reasons. First, "invaded" implies that the Spanish colonization of Puerto Rico was malicious. Maybe it was, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. "Claimed" adheres to the neutral point of view policy because it is what happened – nothing more, nothing less. Second, "claimed" by the Spanish followed by "invaded" by the French, Dutch, and British is correct. Since Spain claimed Puerto Rico as their own, it was (at the time) part of the Spanish Empire. Therefore, French, Dutch, and British attacks on Puerto Rico are the same as an attack on the Spanish mainland. Third, as @DMacks: aptly points out, "claimed" makes the differentiation that the Spanish claimed Puerto Rico as part of their empire.

You did nothing wrong, so please don't feel bad. You're new here, and there is a learning curve. I have made a couple thousand edits and learn something new about Wikipedia nearly every day. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me any time, or visit the welcome page. Also, make sure you sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~). Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Stana Katic Birthday is incorrect. Could you edit it?

Good day! I actually don't know how to do this but could you please change and edit Stana Katic Birthday because is incorrect, according to her IMDb page her Birthdate is April 26 1978. Thank you! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1065664/?ref_=nv_sr_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannehs1987 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joannehs1987: Not done: Hi. Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source here on Wikipedia. IMDb can be edited by anyone, so we don't use it here on Wikipedia. We have a reliable source currently in the article that states April 28, not April 26. If you can find verifiable, reliable sources, then the date can be changed. Also, when on talk pages, please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~). Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there again! I have a question Is People Magazine a reliable source if it is then I have a People Magazine article that was written on April 27 2015 that it says "Stana Katic celebrated her birthday by saying "I do." The Castle star, who turned 37 on Sunday, married longtime boyfriend Kris Brkljac this past weekend." If you check the calendar last year Sunday was April 26 and she turned 37. [1] Please tell me this works because I don't know how to prove to you her birthday is today April 26. Have a good day! Joannehs1987 (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joannehas1987: Done That is a reliable source. Thank you. Amccann421 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon edits

I was confused about why my edit got took down i was only adding that it was a grass type ! NinDippy (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@NinDippy: Hi. First of all, your addition was unsourced. Even if it was proper to add the Pokemon type, you would've needed a reliable source supporting your edit. Otherwise, it is original research and unacceptable. That is not the real issue, though. Adding the type of Pokemon is writing in an in-universe style. We try to avoid that here on Wikipedia, as we are here to present real-world facts and the real-world perspective on fiction. The type of edit you made would likely be more welcome and more applicable on the Pokemon Wikia. Cheers. Amccann421 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@NinDippy: I noticed that you have decided to do this for multiple other Pokemon. I will be reverting those edits. Please don't make any more. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Digital cookies

Thank-you for the digital cookies and the warm welcome Claire.Poggi (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)