User talk:Schazjmd/Archive 4

Susan Sarandon Opinion.

Here are two independent sources: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/susan-sarandon-israeli-snipers-executed-palestinian-journalist/

https://en.royanews.tv/news/35596/2022-05-11

Also found an older source using one of her tweets ..

Good to go ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ras al Ghoul (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

10mmsocket, I removed the collapse tag. Schazjmd (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

More than I asked for, but thank you! 10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Telanian7790, if you want to open another complaint at WP:ANI, go ahead. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Telanian7790, I am not an administrator. They are the only editors with the rights to take any action against other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

After Telanian7790 unidid your change and removed your comments on the article talk page I have gone back to ANI (again) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Telanian7790_back_at_ANI_again_for_tendentious_behaviour_on_article_talk_page --10mmsocket (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, 10mmsocket. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

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."

It is in the Platform Shopping Center, Thank you. --76.20.110.116 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

Sob sister (journalism)

I'd had that term in my to-do list since 2019 lol...also Stunt girl. valereee (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Valereee, by 'stunt girl', did you mean 'stunt girl reporters'? I was looking for an old column by Nelly Bly and came across Sensational: The Hidden History of America's “Girl Stunt Reporters". Have you read it yet? I'm putting it on hold at the library. I was curious after your mention above because I hadn't seen the term before. Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Draft:Stunt girl valereee (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Totally! I created it in draft space instead of user space hoping others (like you) would feel free to contribute! valereee (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

That was fun, Valereee, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

I love that! valereee (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation

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.

Please take more care with articles about living people. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist, the source is the NYT article that was already cited in the article; when an editor reverted, I added the cite to the lead. I should have cited the source in my original edit, and will take more care, thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Fiat Doblò

Hi. The copyright violating contributions were already deleted Special:Diff/1092329883. This is just one of many infringements by this user as reported on ANI. Best. YBSOne (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ybsone! Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Did not know that, thank You. YBSOne (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio via (machine?) translation

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)

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)

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)

Ah, I just realised I was thinking of Christopher Guest's page instead! 92.10.13.209 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thank you :) 92.10.13.209 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Craig Duffy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Valetude, I don't understand what you mean. The content that I added to the article is still there. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I was working from text I'd managed to copy down incomplete. Sorry you were troubled - and thanks again. Valetude (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valetude, no problem! I have it on my watchlist so I'll see if anyone objects to the addition. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@PartTroix, I don't think you read the link to WP:ASSESS that I provided in my edit summary. The article rating has nothing to do with importance. It's solely about quality. Schazjmd (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Heather Armstrong

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)

Good to know that you're watching it too, Daniel Case, I appreciate it. Between us, we'll keep the article safe. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

(Adding @BloxyColaSweet: ping again as it didn't seem to work.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Testing

Testing. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

BloxyColaSweet, you fixed it. Schazjmd (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanation

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)

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)

Glad you enjoyed it, @Willondon! I have no idea how it works or if it can be filtered, but it's oddly hypnotic. (LOL at the ANI description!) Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Good edits

El DonkeyKong (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Undying Sikh

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)

@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)

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)

@Plutonium27, they probably haven't seen any of the notifications/warnings on their talk page, see Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Schazjmd (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

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. MB 04:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

incidence vs. incidences

In the revert of my edit of Children's Health Defense, I notice that you did not address the point I made in my edit summary, i.e. the suggestion in MOS:QUOTE that 'insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected'. Did you happen to overlook that? Fabrickator (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a misspelling or a typographical error. Look up "incidences" on google scholar. Schazjmd (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Please take the following information into consideration:

1. Many dictionaries explain that incidence is "non-countable", i.e. its use in the plural is atypical.

2. Google ngrams comparing "incidents of", "incidence of" and "incidences of"

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 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Thanks

That was really cool process! 85.238.103.38 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to online translation tools. Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Yep, if you check out Template:cite web, you'll see that url and title are the only mandatory fields for that form of citation. Schazjmd (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it's not only ones ) Corresponding discussions have place starting from March. In short - there's error appearing when "first[n]" field have value and "last[n]" is not. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Glad to help. If you run into any other ref situations that you have a question about, I'll try to answer. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it and surely will ask if any ) 85.238.103.38 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

I appreciate the message, @Springnuts, thanks! I figured it must have been some misunderstanding. Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Keffals Revision

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.

Best wishes. SecretName101 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Gufujo

This tag makes me question whether the Gufujo article meets the general notability guideline. Thoughts? M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@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)

It might possibly be a candidate to merge to Esperanto#Culture. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging it to Esperanto#Culture, though from what I can tell, it barely qualifies even for that. M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

Thank you for looking into this. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	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! ^_^ ~ Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 18:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

MegaMack02 Sock: SpamMan247

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.

It would be best to file an SPI against this guy because it seems crystal clear that he is a MegaMack02 sockpuppet. Thanks, 67.53.217.198 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay if I paste your comment here to WP:SPI? Schazjmd (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course. 67.53.217.198 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the head's up, I hadn't encountered any of those names before. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The sock has just edited their second article while I was writing this, Changhe CoolCar, which was extensively edited by MegaMack02. 67.53.217.198 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, saw that and added it to the SPI report. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Set the case status to {{SPI case status|CUrequest}} so the CheckUsers can determine the sock as  Confirmed/very  Likely or  Unlikely/ Unrelated. 67.53.217.198 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It often helps in speeding up the SPI process. 67.53.217.198 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer leaving the CU decision to the clerks and CUs. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And...it's CU blocked. Schazjmd (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Re the user I just blocked

Checking their edits to Alex Jones, I guess it doesn't look like a great loss if they stay indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 17:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen, plus their edits to Kanye West...I think you're probably right. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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 | tålk 20:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you

I have many problems with Wikipedia, thank you let me know If I need to change anything. ConM2341 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ConM2341. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Any time that you have a question, please visit WP:TEAHOUSE where experienced editors are happy to help. Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Apollo 13

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)

@Wehwalt, yep, I overlooked the "crewed" portion of that sentence; when the Artemis record was announced, I didn't read carefully enough. Thanks for fixing my mistake. (BTW, it wasn't just Pearlman, it's also reported here and here.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

Citation Learning

Hello, Schazjmd. Thank you for fixing my online references for me. I should be able to learn how to do that very soon. Appreciate it once again, StephenBryant7 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, @StephenBryant7. One useful tool I like is https://citer.toolforge.org/ -- you just plug in the URL or ISBN and it will generate a Wikipedia-formatted citation for you. (You do have to double-check its fields, of course.) Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Works like a charm! Thanks, StephenBryant7 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia so idk how to make a new thingy.

Anyway I meant season 9 of Big Bang Theory not young sheldon watch the episode it was in exchange for the name of an asteroid MrFluffster (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

San Joaquin Valley

Thanks for your edit to San Joaquin Valley. Several editors from a university project have edited the article, and nearly every edit has been reverted. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

​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)

Couldn't agree more. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Stan Swamy

Hi,

I am afraid computer hacking doesn't appear like it belongs under "Illness and Death" section. It's more related to the previous section. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@AltruisticHomoSapien, moving to the earlier section is fine, It just doesn't need a section of its own. Schazjmd (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Im confused

You stated on my talk page that one of my edits were unconstructive, but which one? ඞඞඞඞඞඞ (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@ඞඞඞඞඞඞ, I had this one in mind. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec22}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 22:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers, thank you so much! And a wonderful holiday season for you and yours as well (plus an awesome 2023)! Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

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)

@Davidgoodheart, Merry Christmas to you as well and may you have a blessed 2023! Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You to! ConM2341 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I am confused...

You deleted my Jim Nabors edit yet on the page it says he is homosexual, Don't you think that is a bit Stupid 67.140.232.192 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the inconvenience 67.140.232.192 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are u Miss Holland's Publicist?

Discussion taking place on Talk:Holland Taylor

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) @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) 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) @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) U are abusing your power as an admin and i would kindly advise u to decist from being such a nuisance! IslandScholar (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC) @IslandScholar, I am not an admin. Schazjmd (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Yes you are. Why are you trying to deceive me. I don't even know you personally and you're hating on me like this. IslandScholar (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC) @IslandScholar: No, they're not an Admin. Either try to understand the policies, guidelines, or, go play somewhere else. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, happy everything

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)

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)

@Wallstreethotrod, imdb isn't a reliable source. Hopefully, if the uncredited appearance is mentioned in the actors' articles, it cites a source that you can copy to the movie's article. (See MOS:FILMCAST.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

India Hicks Edit Proposal

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)

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)

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)

Hi, email isn't necessary: you can view every edit made by anyone in the article's history. In that revision history, if you click Prev, you will see the difference between the edit and the version before. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you have any questions about why I reverted any edit, please feel free to ask here. I'll be glad to explain. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Achaudhary0205 continues to make ungrammatical edits and modify quotes, does not reply to talk page. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

that one ip address who keeps trying to smear brie joy gray

can we ban him lol Manicpickmenightmaregirl (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Manicpickmenightmaregirl, I don't see any recent edits by an IP on that article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

oh I meant from November, the guy trying to say she supports Ukrainian genocide basically lol Manicpickmenightmaregirl (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited since then. Blocks are only to prevent disruption. Schazjmd (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Important alert

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

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 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2022

Regarding G. D. Bakshi, are you really sure that Print.in and Alt News (IFCN certified fact checker) is unreliable source? Don't do this whitewashing again.[2] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@Cravaack, any changes that you make to the article must be supported by published reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read many of your edits and most have no published reliable sources.

Your claims to justify reverts boils down to the shit you - or fellow crony- wrote first is the published reliable source.

Identities such as Schazjmd are the reason that most of us no longer fund Wiki. Ptonellato (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ptonellato:, when I add new content, I add a reference to the source for the information. Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@schazjmd… what is curious, you Disregard a primary source of the information. One would think that if the originator Road incorrect information 2600:8807:8882:1700:A9DA:EB8B:263D:7CA3 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the edit you're questioning? Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Main North High School

Sorry about unilaterally removing the tags without discussing it first, bit of a greenhorn mistake. 2A02:8388:27C2:3A80:4424:8DB:34E4:4E69 (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It happens. Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing

You saw that:[3]? Reminds me of the [4] "case". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that's exactly what happened, someone retweeted that story and it caught my eye. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Good choice of ref! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Pocalyko

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).

https://www.intomore.com/culture/forced-detransition-drove-a-young-trans-woman-to-suicide/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/eden-knight-transgender-woman-suicide-saudi-arabia-b2301068.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4500:B1A0:2CB2:7DE2:1CF2:3CDD (talk • contribs)

Please discuss at Talk:Michael Pocalyko. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

NYT Reliability Downgrade

Hello Schazijmd In light of the New York Times' publishing transphobic trash like this article in defense of JKR (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/opinion/jk-rowling-transphobia.html) I suggest you consider downgrading it's reliability. They also act as propagandists for the fossil fuel industry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1OZ-58918). They do not deserve respect. (not sure how to sign it but I'm guessing it'll show up in edit history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4500:B1A0:2CB2:7DE2:1CF2:3CDD (talk • contribs)

Please discuss at WP:RSN. Schazjmd (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

hey? why did you change my edit?

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)

@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)

sister, if i provide sources so you won't do it again right? ProGamer111333 (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change my edits?

The figures are wrong here are the correct figures https://www.oocities.org/~dagmawi/History/Ethiopia-Egypt-War.html. Even in the citations provided the numbers don’t reflect the same numbers in the citations, it’s edited by Ethiopians to make it seem as if it was an equal fight 178.164.236.201 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk pages. I responded to you at Talk:Battle of Gura. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

you are the worst. you change everyone's edits for no reason and you should not be a wikipedia mod ProGamer111333 (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, she is a fascist. She even deleted my post where I called her sister 94.21.249.85 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Explanation

@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)

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 Girth Summit _(blether) 14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion

Schazjmd, In regards to the Nathan Fillion page, according to his page on IMDB, his full name is Nathan Christopher Fillion.

Should that added in or not?

Regards

SocialOutsider 2001:BB6:2CB5:4300:7DB7:2E23:FD51:D57E (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMDB isn't a reliable source, so we can't add a middle name based on it. Schazjmd (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

AIV comment reply

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! Tails Wx 16:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx, thank you!! Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fyre Festival edits -- thanks

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)

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)

@Jervis49, Ghertydjzww hasn't repeated the inappropriate behavior that I warned them against since then. You should both engage at Talk:Sylvain Charlebois to discuss the content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the comments he left on my talk page Jervis49 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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.

thank you for answering to my complaint Jervis49 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Something about the Tirrito Ayrton’s creation log

Hey! Saw your case in wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MegaMack02 regarding known sock Spongebobsquarepants890. Just in case you’re not aware, the creator of Draft:Tirrito Ayrton is also a MegaMack sock, specifically, the draft was made by previous sock ThomasDuhTankEngine2843. 2600:8801:A907:2B00:B801:27E7:7F1F:F4C (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Signing

Please sign your comments when you close discussions thanks. Lightoil (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the reminder. Schazjmd (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you

For your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_aspersions_from_Unbiased6969. The things that happens while one is not watching. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a lively few hours. I wish it could have just been de-escalated, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way... Schazjmd (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	For resolving the question about the unreferenced Awards table in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert by providing references. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Thank you, @Robert McClenon, this was very thoughtful of you! Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Endeavour Award: Revision history

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)

Agatha Christie visit to Pakistan

Discussion at Talk:Agatha Christie

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) @Sayyedfahad, please discuss at Talk:Agatha Christie. You'll need to make a case for why that information has any significance to Christie's biography. Schazjmd (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 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)

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)

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)

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)

@Huskerdru, I have added the page numbers to the quoted material in Synopsis. Schazjmd (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant! Many thanks 👍 Huskerdru (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment to three editors

@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)

Hi! I apologize for that and have read the links you have sent and will stop. Thank you for the notice! Screnda (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Screnda! Schazjmd (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source

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 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@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)

David Knopfler article

Why do you keep vandalising my wikipage? David Knopfler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7D9:6101:9164:CE57:38E0:A5F4 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm making edits to ensure the article follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Schazjmd (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Classic Rock

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)

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)

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)

@Boney421, that's a great discussion to have at Talk:Classic rock. Perhaps you'll convince other editors (assuming you can provide sufficient relilable sources - a blog isn't a reliable source). Schazjmd (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

"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)

There's another fivethirtyeight article (not the one cited for that sentence) that goes into detail about the data collected and analyzed on classic rock. It's good reading. Schazjmd (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

@Boney421, Wikipedia is based on consensus and verifiability based on reliable sources. Take it to Talk:Classic rock and make your argument there. You post there just like you posted here. Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Thanks

I added your tip on MOS:Logical to my list of things to remember in the future. Captchacatcher (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Anett971109

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)

@Tuti Fritter, I have given the editor a final warning. If they repeat the edit again, I can report them to the administrators for action. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Camp Page - COI Request

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)

Hi @John Pinette. It looks like Spintendo expressed interest in reviewing your changes. He asked you to change the edit request parameter from |ans=y to |ans=n on your edit request at Talk:Garrett Camp when you were ready. Try that. Schazjmd (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

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. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 00:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to help; I like looking for sources. Starr's Embattled Dreams is a book.[8] Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Non Sequitur?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_family&diff=1184610165&oldid=1184599131 Lau737 (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lau737, you added the same content about unhappy marriages and depression to multiple articles. While that content might be relevant to Divorce and Marriage, it did not make sense in Nuclear family#"Traditional" North American family. My edit summary was referring to the literary meaning of non sequitur, but it would have been clearer if I'd written "not relevant to this context" so I apologize for not using that clearer explanation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be anywhere. Then again the submission is short and all those pages have sections of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lau737 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Betty R. King, You, Me & EVERYBODY else.

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.

Equal standards are supposed to apply to all, and what we are dealing with, in terms of expectations (and endearments) here, is possessing neither proportion nor fairness. 2600:1014:B073:93FB:B83D:F433:60A7:3649 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of hyperbole. You made an unsourced addition. Also, imdb is not a reliable source. See WP:CASTLIST. Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see I'm not the only victim of Troll the Deletor. His mom must be so proud. Juliendion (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Henry IV etc. re Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

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)

I'm glad you understand, @John315. There is original research in articles across Wikipedia, but it isn't allowed, it just means another editor hasn't caught it yet. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Schazjmd! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @StarTrekker, and Merry Christmas to you as well!! Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Wishing you a spicy Christmas

Spicy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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.

Editor experience invitation

Hi Schazjmd :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Clovermoss! I'm thinking over the questions and may or may not post the answers I come up with, but I appreciate being invited. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Schazjmd!

Happy New Year!

Schazjmd,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Abishe, and the same to you! Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts edit

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)

That is an unfortunate juxtaposition, @TPleft, thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

I deleted it per WP:ELNO #19. Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Perry problem.

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)

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_appearance has ended, and consensus is against including it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that. And thanks a lot Rowing007. You did best. But whatever then. 😒 182.255.41.207 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Rod McKuen

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)

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)

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)

I did that for the images when I checked the first time, the text is illegible. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

@OiYoiYoink, thanks but not necessary. Like I said, I trust you on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that :) OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

I note your recent edit of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was reverted by the same unregistered user. This appears to be a wider issue with this editor, refer my comments at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ilenart626, I'll take a look at that, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Wise German ancestry

I read the section (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, Gene Kelly, Alan Jay Lerner (couldn't find anything about his ancestry, but he had a German/Jewish surname), Richard Rodgers, and Oscar Hammerstein II. 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.". This claim has been repeated on a few potentially unreliable websites The IMDB biography was written by a Lukas Fichtinger of HTL Braunau. 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", though I haven't been able to verify this either. What are your thoughts? Endebyrd (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

Request

Hello. In Swingin' with My Eyes Closed page I found out that Metro is a tabloid newspaper per WP:RSPSOURCES. Would you remove it? Regards. 2001:D08:2901:1C81:17AD:52FF:66B2:D7C (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

General Collective Intelligence

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)

@CognitiveMMA, see the draft's talk page, where I posted earlier today about the first three refs you cited and what the problems with them were. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleopatra

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@Simmons1998, I'm not an administrator, but I suggest your best approach is to join the discussion on the lead image at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt (where other editors have been discussing the photo) and express your concerns there. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

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)

@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)

Thank you, @DollysOnMyMind. @Yotrages, if you cannot tell the difference between a direct quote by the governor and the source paraphrasing the governor's words, you may not have the competence to edit Wikipedia articles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@Yotrages, you removed my comment; never do that. As to how are you to know? By reading the source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been warned of that only 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)

@Schazjmd Sorry for that, it's a mistake by my browser. Yotrages (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages, @DollysOnMyMind, both of you need to read WP:EW and WP:BRD. When you make an edit that is reverted by another editor, start a discussion on the article talk page. This applies to all articles, but I noticed it most recently at Chris Brown. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages

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)

@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)

Thank you. Really appreciate the suggestion. If the dude continues, I will definitely do that DollysOnMyMind (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Great to see this! Let's see what other editors think as well then DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

I am closing this thread. Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Stix1776, the current text is:

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)

Thank you so much for your input. I appreciate all your effort.

The other guy is being pretty edit warry, but I'm trying not to drag anyone else in if I can help it.Stix1776 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI closure

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)

You're right, I've reverted it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

hey whyd you remove my pitt edits?

i gave three sources for the age difference, he was 27 and she was 17 when they dated. NotQualified (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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 sourced must 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.

You need a high-quality source that explicitly connects Pitt with ephebophilia. Schazjmd (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@NotQualified, you could also post the question at WP:BLPN and see if editors there agree with you. Schazjmd (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for the help!! i will link to this discussion so they understand the context NotQualified (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for your help again! Is always room to improve. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• 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 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• 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.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

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:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

DEBASHISH CHATTERJEE

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).

please fix the wrong information given. Jimsocial (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jimsocial, please bring up your concerns at Talk:Debashis Chatterjee. I restored the information that is supported by the cited source. Your changes were unsourced. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:Veriability and WP:RS. If those exist, then WP:Truth would apply. If they do not, then it shouldn't be there. I agree. It all belongs on the article's talk page, where it can be sorted out. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Auzandil

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 Auzandil Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

improper closure

Have a fine day! I am asking that you review and undo your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes; per WP:WITHDRAWN, a discussion should not be closed just because the nominator withdrew their nomination if there is not a uniformity of response, which clearly there was not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you! - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Pyrex

I saw the internal email about the sale of Pyrex but I am not sure if I am allowed to publish the document. What is the best way to handle? 2600:1016:B025:A5E3:710E:D6BA:CEFD:F650 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your help and making Wiki accurate. Pyrex5551212 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Greek Source (19:40, 20 May 2024)

I Need to name an article and make it public. --Greek Source (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@A Proud Alabamian, just please take more care with your reversions. There was nothing wrong with that edit so I don't understand why you reverted it four times. Schazjmd (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I thought it was vandalism, which is why I reverted it. I was only looking out for the project. A Proud Alabamian (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@A Proud Alabamian: That makes sense. I understand why you thought it was vandalism. Thank you. 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ANI clerking

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.

It looks like this. El_C 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agh!! I know better and forgot. So sorry, @El C, I'll remember next time. Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey no worries, thank you. Hope you've been well. All the best, El_C 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

How did you tag an edit as good-faith?

Hi!

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?

Thanks, SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the reccommendation! I'll try that. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Excellent508 (16:49, 11 June 2024)

I started an article and saved it. I came back but could not find it. How do I locate what I have been working on? --Excellent508 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I was.

I switched to another page. Then came back, it was gone. I am still on the same computer. Excellent508 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

When you edit a page, you have to save (Publish) your changes. Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)