I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. At first, I'm stepping my toes into the AIV arena but watching backlogs. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I did not know that the collision was already in the article since another person said it wasn’t true, so I decided to clear things up and say to him that it is true.
Once that was done, I started working on the collision part. And yes, it can be in the lead, because it is talking about the other galaxies nearby the Milky Way, and also since it was sort of a perfect place to fit it in.
So I also want your opinion - do you think it should be in the lead, it can be, I dunno what you confirmed users want…
Pixomite, please start a discussion at Talk:Milky Way to get consensus from other editors on whether it should be mentioned in the lead. Personally, I don't think it should. The lead should briefly summarize the key points of the article as a whole; the potential collision in several billion years is not a key point or significant enough to include in the lead. Schazjmd(talk)22:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I can do against this disruptive user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amusement_Park&action=history
You opened a thread in talk page to tell stop edit warring, I justified everything in talk page with more than a dozen of sources, user couldn't dispute any of them and stopped participating. And as such, I made adjustments per talk page and also added some new info with source. He just destroyed all of them by reverting with a complete destruction with his disruptive behaviour. I did everything in line with rules, I extensively justified everything in talk page. He removed an information by another user by declaring "box office magazine" as not reliable and then my new additions with his complete reversion with a nonsense summary without any care. I added a new info along with a source, and adjustments I made "reflects the references" and justified in talk page extensively. He's reverting with "Rv to version which reflects the references". My adjustments -reflects- the references. This is trolling at this point and very disruptive. He "owns" the article and stubbornly sticks to the his inaccurate initial edits and do not let anyone to make adjustments despite it's justified with a dozen of sources. Tehonk (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, no problem Schazjmd, you were helpful and fair on this matter all the time, thanks for all your help and fairness. Can you tell me what would be best way to handle this further? I couldn't quite get difference between several methods, like dispute resolution and RfC for example. I need an uninvolved, fair person read every argument presented on talk page and make a fair judgment. The user is manipulating things all the time, made it a personal matter rather than it's being about the content, I can't deal with it alone. Tehonk (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tehonk, thanks for understanding.Because the disagreement is a content dispute between only two editors, I'd recommend third opinion. The other option to try is dispute resolution, but I do think the third opinion option would be the simplest.You can also consider dropping the matter and editing elsewhere. Some Many Wikipedia battles aren't worth the time and energy they use up and the unpleasantness they cause. In the greater scheme of things, how important is this one article? And just like everywhere else on the internet, you'll encounter other people here that you just can't communicate effectively with. I tend to avoid those editors; there are plenty of other places in the project where I can invest my time. Think it over. If you're not enjoying this battle on the article, do something else. If you feel that it's too important to abandon, check out WP:3O.Good luck with whatever you decide to do! Schazjmd(talk)23:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but how do I add a talk or comment section? News sources say some people received the award the article is about, but not what year, and I don't know what to do about it. I was going to leave a comment in the talk section, but I don't know how to do that? InezSerrano (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, InezSerrano. You can ask anything here anytime, though it's best to start a new discussion by putting a section header (I added one here for you). You start a discussion on an article talk page or on an editor's talk page exactly like that: add a heading, then just type your comment. Do you use the Visual Editor or edit-source?I'm about done editing for the evening, but if you want to start a discussion on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award with the names that are missing a year, I can work on finding the missing information tomorrow. Schazjmd(talk)00:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured it all out, thank you so much. If you have the time to review my changes to the article tomorrow, I'd welcome it. Good Night! InezSerrano (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting that annoyance on my userpage - I hadn't even noticed their return to bother me about the RfA. Please accept this token of my appreciation. ♠Vami_IV†♠13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schazjmd. You just sent me this message: "I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Elvis Francois, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)"
-- The source that was included in the edit includes all of the information I edited/added. As the source was from Rolling Stone, I would imagine this is a reliable source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzurn (talk • contribs)
Zzurn, I checked the Rolling Stone ref and found no mention of Zach Zurn or Carpet Booth. Also, on talk pages, always add your comment at the bottom of the page, and sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your comment, like this: ~~~~ Schazjmd(talk)22:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! It looks like the "Zach Zurn" information was not there - that is correct. But both reference numbers 1 and 4 mentioned the album being recorded at Carpet Booth Studios.
Reference 1: Dr. Elvis Francois, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Mayo Clinic, records a song at Carpet Booth Studios in Rochester, Minn.
Reference 4: A few days after their call, the surgeons were in Rochester’s Carpet Booth Studios cutting “Imagine” and “Lean on Me,” along with Mike Yung’s “Alright” and Andra Day’s “Rise Up.” The R&B singer’s inspiring lyrics — “I’ll rise like the day … I’ll rise unafraid” — are a regular in the Robinson’s rotation.
Hello. The Australian PM said the submarines would not need to be refueled during its lifetime. The Guardian article states that the French nuclear vessels have to be refueled every 10 years because they use non-weapons-grade uranium. Regards. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that made mistakes. But earlier a user who warned me warned Vucein also but they started accusing them also claiming they do correct edits. And I saw their contributions. They just remove things from every page they edit. But they need to understand that Anupamaa is an on-air show. And it's story will increase. And the plot which they remove in the name of last stable is more than 1 month old as I'm the regular viewer of the show. Even they use prefixes like Baa and Bapuji as nicknames which is wrong. And remove nicknames and post marital surnames of some characters. Add unsourced ratings. And remove even info about 2 tracks for whom they were made. Is this behaviour nice??? Pra2310 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vucein doesn't agree to anyone. They just think they're perfect. Atleast I'm accepting my mistakes. But they doesn't. You may visit their talk page. Where discussion Anupamaa on 30 held Pra2310 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
see Vucein isn't ready to talk and constantly removing necessary plot. Removing plot which is more than 1 month old. Removing necessary info from cast and soundtrack section and not willing to come on talk page. Then what could I do Pra2310 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Start a discussion about one specific change at a time on the talk page, and ping Vucien to the discussion. If the discussion is unproductive or Vucien refuses to engage, see WP:Dispute resolution for other options.I also suggest you consider the nature of the edits in dispute. When there is a factual error in an article, it makes sense to pursue getting it fixed. When it's subjective (such as in a plot description), is it worth fighting over? I've compared your edit to Anupamaa with the version Vucein reverted to. Neither version is wrong except for number of episodes. Neither version is significantly better. This is not a sensible edit war, simply a battle between two editors' personal preferences. Schazjmd(talk)16:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pra2310’s version contains over detailed plot additions. They keep adding unnecessary details which do not belong in the plot section. It is supposed to be summed up as per Wikipedia rules. And their additions in the soundtrack section are purely fancruft. They need to stop promoting SaNan, aka the ship name of two characters of the show. Wikipedia doesn't allow this. It is isn’t fandom.com for the user to keep on doing this. Vucien (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither of you are discussing this with each other on the article's talk page, but instead are continuing the slow edit-war and arguing via edit summaries, you are both in the wrong. Please read WP:ENGAGE and follow its recommendations. Schazjmd(talk)13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really @Vucien. I visited your talk page. You engage in war edit with everyone. I just engaged with you. Well I'll not use ship name. It's my fault. But atleast don't remove info about the tracks for whom they were made. They were purely meant for Samar and Nandini. And don't remove plot to more than 1 month old track. I'm a regular viewer of show since beginning. Remember it's an on-air show. If you want to condense plot then go to Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Mein page. There everything is detailed. Pra2310 (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pra2310 you need to stop adding over detailed plot to the section. You cannot add everything that happens in a show to the plot section. Go read Wikipedia’s guidelines about conciseness and word limit. Vucien (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi for the page Haraldskær Woman I added a link on "The Cultural Museum" because I am sure there's many The Cultural Museums in the world. the The Cultural Museum of in central Vejle, Denmark didn't have a wiki page so instead I pasted an external link from what I thought was the official website. That's the reason behind me adding the external link. Thanks for your time--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hi, I have been talking with another editor about the Feynman Technique and its association with Feynman and can't seem to find any viable source despite the publicity behind it. I was thinking about removing most of the citations as they are quite poor and noticed you removed one from medium. The first instance of the technique that I can find on the internet is a youtube video back in 2012, I can't seem to find anything before that. I am thinking of putting some of the science behind the technique on the page. What are your thoughts on the current citations? I am a new editor so apologies for the errors :)DannyHatcher (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DannyHatcher. I had to remove the Medium link because it's not a reliable source. (See its entry at WP:RSPS.) When I check ProQuest, there are actually a number of sources on Feynman Technique in the context of learning theory. (After you have 500 edits and 6 months editing, you'll have access to ProQuest and many other useful resources via The Wikipedia Library.) I don't have time to go through them tonight, but I'll add some of them to the article this week. Based on what I've seen though, I do agree with HouseOfChange that it isn't actually Feynman's technique, it just uses his name. In fact, most scholarly sources that mention "feynman technique" are talking about physics and mathematics, not learning pedagogy. There are a few journal articles about the Feynman Technique in relation to learning, check the first results at Google Scholar. Those should be helpful for the article. Schazjmd(talk)00:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on having a look through some articles tomorrow as I couldn't find anything easy today. The article abstracts I read just seem to bring up in passing rather than talking about it in depth but I son't know till I do a deep dive. Thanks for sharing that link! DannyHatcher (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, i accept that i made a mistake by adding the link in 2 related articles. But i was only reading related article and if i find something where i can add the reference i added them. In the case of waistcoat ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waistcoat ) article there was no citation added there and it said citation needed. The link i added had the picture of same design product so i added it there. i would also like to ask is the website i added not trustworthy or is it that we can only add article as citation? Wajahat elahi (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wajahat elahi, links to commercial websites are almost never going to be a reliable source for content. I say "almost never" because there is always a possibility of an exception for some special case, but as a rule of thumb, don't cite commercial websites. When an article has a "citation needed" tag, that means it needs a reliable source that directly supports that information, a source that readers can consult to verify the information. In the Waistcoat article, the information that needed a source was The variant of the clergy cassock may be cut as a vest. It differs in style from other waistcoats in that the garment buttons to the neck and has an opening that displays the clerical collar.. Your link offered nothing to make that information verifiable. In the Jeans article, the information that needed a source was The production of jeans with a "used look" can be more environmentally damaging than regular jeans,. A link to a page to buy a pair of jeans does not help readers verify the information.You should read WP:RS to learn more about the types of sources that are appropriate for Wikipedia articles. When you find a source and aren't sure whether it would be considered a reliable source, check WP:RSPS to see if it's been discussed; if it isn't listed there, you can ask at WP:RSN.If you have questions as you learn to edit articles, you're welcome to ask me here, and you can also get useful advice at WP:TEAHOUSE. Hope that helps! Schazjmd(talk)14:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the redirect, I am still new to editing and didn't know how to do it. I was going to look into it tomorrow. Could you give me a quick run down about how and what you did? DannyHatcher (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, DannyHatcher. This was a very simple merge, since there wasn't a lot of content to begin with and our various research hadn't come up with much to support any expansion of the information. So for this one, I just wrote up a brief definition of it, chose the least promotional source, and added it to the new location. Then I changed the text in Feynman Technique to #REDIRECT [[Learning_by_teaching#Plastic_platypus_learning]]Sometimes the bulk or totality of an article should be preserved, and that can be more difficult. A "neat" merge would be to take all of the content from the article being merged and make it its own section/subsection in the target article. A "messy" merge requires the editor to carefully insert the merged content piece-by-piece throughout the article as necessary to keep a coherent story. With a complex merge, you also want to make sure you're not duplicating content.Anytime you copy content from one article to another, whether as part of a merge or not, you must attribute it in the edit summary, like this: Content copied from (name of article), see that article's history for attribution. Because I wrote a new sentence in the Learning by teaching article, I didn't need to attribute it.Occasionally, an article simply duplicates information elsewhere and shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Then you just replace the content with the redirect syntax to the correct target. Hope that helps! Drop by here anytime if you have more questions. Schazjmd(talk)22:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that does help, thank you! I was guessing the copy paste and make it fit part but wasn't sure about the redirect which is the #REDIRECT bit. I will have a look at the page source and see what it looks like now. Thanks again :) DannyHatcher (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the past for all the numerous times you have openly rebuked me about my shortcomings and simultaneously defended me when the need arose, it takes a true friend to chastise and tell their friends the truth. Thank you so much, you have made me a better me. Celestina007 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Schazjmd: Do you know how I can delete every addition, every edit, everything I ever contributed to this site? After today, I want nothing to do with it.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that, Mrdnartdesign. You can remove everything from your talk page, but I'm afraid it isn't possible to delete your contributions anywhere else on the site (articles, noticeboards, etc). Schazjmd(talk)00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an infobox, for the children field, we put the number of children, assuming there are reliable sources to support the information. We do not list names in the infobox unless the child or relative has a Wikipedia article to link to. See Template:infobox person for details on each field of the infobox. Also, when you post a comment on a talk or discussion page, end your comment with four tildes: ~~~~ That way the software will insert your signature and the time/date stamp of your comment. Schazjmd(talk)01:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I find this confusing because I have never once seen a wiki page where there are numbers in place of names for children. Moreover, I see bulks of pages that not only contain the names of the children rather than numbers, but contain names of children with no wiki page and/or no notoriety. Can you please direct me to where the information on listing children is?
I'd also like to add that the revisions in question by Didoo1 are not in regards to whether her child, Stanton LaVey is notable (of which he does happen to be and I am working on his page now), but in regards to the user's reasoning which is personal rather than factual.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsidedownVal (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not signing your comments properly. Please learn to do so.I linked you to the guidance on infoboxes in my first reply to you. You can see an example at Tom Hanks. It lists his total number of children, and only includes names for the notable children. Schazjmd(talk)01:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I read this as the parameters: Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable.
For the sake of the argument you are putting forth, Stanton LaVey is both notable and relevant. However, I will be changing my edit of the page to say "1" since there is no wiki page of Stanton LaVey. If Didoo1 tries to undo this edit I will create another report as that goes right back to the reason for my report to begin with which is that Didoo1 is using personal reasons rather than factual ones which negates neutrality. Thank you for all your feedback.
[1][2][3]UpsidedownVal (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schazmd,
Thanks for your note. I’m a newbie to Wiki edits so I don’t know how to reference or which changes I made need documentation. I’m Valerie’s brother, so some of what I added is from personal interaction and family history. E.g., Val spent 1945-49 in Japan with our folks and indeed danced Kabuki but how do I reference that? Val and I think it’s interesting having had a blue-eyed blond-haired girl doing Kabuki! I’m assuming the correction on our great-grandfather is OK as I added and referenced the entry in our genealogical book. Are there other edits needing references?
Thanks,
Ken Perrine (I’m Kenneth R while our father was Kenneth I). Google me as Dr. Kenneth Perrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krp2003 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ken. I'm afraid that personal knowledge isn't sufficient for Wikipedia articles. The policy is verifiability, which requires published sources. The policy helps prevent people from adding false information, which is a real problem on Wikipedia. This is particularly important for biographies of living people. Thank you for your corrections to Valerie Perrine which were sourced to the Hugeonot book. I only removed the added content that does not have a published source to support it. I hope you understand that verifiability means that any reader of an article can go to the sources we cite and confirm that we summarized the information accurately. Even if I could validate your identity, I still couldn't add content to the article based only on your knowledge because readers could not verify it. Cheers! Schazjmd(talk)15:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for the 'invitation'! I'm actually on the "typo team", but I don't know a quick and easy way to found tons of typos and fix them? I like to do huge volumes of work in spurts. How did you find me by the way? I am flattered. ♥
Thanks for the cookie, Th78blue! For the typo team, I like to go to Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss and either work on Likely misspellings by article (main listing) or Likely misspellings by frequency sections. If you add your name for notifications, you'll get a ping when a new dump of possible misspellings is added. Cheers! Schazjmd(talk)21:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it, Th78blue! My favorite is Likely misspellings by frequency, because it's the same typo in multiple articles, so I can just get in a repetitive flow. And if you ever feel like doing some content creation, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I think it's a great place to start writing articles because notability is already established and there is almost always good resources, plus the articles share a basic format that is easy to work with. Happy editing! Schazjmd(talk)21:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
♥ ! Do you know where I can find a list of the wikimarkup required for more smileys? I only know , and ♥. I prefer to work with wikimarkup in the "old" style of editing. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)21:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Th78blue, another suggestion: go to your Preferences and on the Gadget tab, enable Navigation popups. The popups provide a lot of useful info and menu options. In addition, you can hover over a hyperlinked user name (such as in history or diff view on an article) and see that editor's status, edit count, etc. This is especially helpful if you're reviewing recent changes. For instance, if you're uncertain whether an edit is appropriate, use the pop-up to see whether you're looking at a contribution from a brand-new editor who likely has little idea what they're doing, a barely-experienced editor who might not be familiar yet with all of the policies and guidelines, or an editor who's racked up thousands of edits and probably has a good reason for making that edit. Cheers! Schazjmd(talk)01:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(testing out a few).
Hello Schazjmd, Th78blue has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
My edit didn't actually remove the short description, I was just trying to remove the blank line under it. Frankly, it didn't work, because the empty space is still there. Rather than reverting my edit, can you help me complete it? I see no reason for those empty lines between the short description and the beginning of the article. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It actually did remove the short description rather than the blank line, JDspeeder1, but no harm done. I've removed the blank lines and the article appears to display properly now. Cheers! Schazjmd(talk)15:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note in the edit history for Serenity. I have no issue with you reversing my edits since I forgot to check if I was going over the limit, but is there still room to improve some of the grammatical issues with the plot summary? Any suggestions would be appreciated since I love this movie and want to contribute to this page. --GenesisMaster (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GenesisMaster, it is an awesome movie, isn't it? Over the 18 years of the article's history, multiple editors have worked on the plot summary. (See this version as an example.) The plot gets expanded (some might say bloated), then other editors go in and condense it back down. There are countless ways it could be written, but right now it's clear, accurate, and within the word limit. Changing things just to be changing them isn't very constructive. What you might like to do is expand the Firely franchise navbar at the bottom of the article to see all Firefly-related articles and check those out for possible improvements. I'm not saying you can't edit the plot summary on Serenity, just keep it under the word limit and have a very good reason for any change that you make. Happy editing! Schazjmd(talk)15:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, I see your point. There are many other ways I can contribute to improving Firefly, so I think I will do those instead. Thanks for hearing me out. --GenesisMaster (talk) 6:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
My name is Andrew Bragg and I am an Australian politician. I have disclosed my connection to the page about me, and proposed some additions on the Talk page. There seems to be at least some support for those changes, but 3 months later I’m still having a hard time finding someone to expressly approve/implement the additions or reject them. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look and consider my proposed additions. AndrewJamesBragg (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just thought it polite to make my previous edit clearer since you notified me about it- when changing the spacing, I saw the footnote you mentioned, viz. 'Writing in 1952, Burgess wrote that Coman was Bates' "dearest companion of her life"', which I thought an extremely odd quote to employ in support of the article's statement "Some scholars believe the two women were a lesbian couple" since the quote itself is so vague and in no way conclusively establishes- one could even argue, in no way very strongly indicates- such a relationship between the two women. On the basis that presumably the other sources cited in support of that statement do so in a more direct manner, I thought removing the vague statement that, frankly, only muddies the waters (by effectively implying that no more direct "they were lesbians"-type statement exists) would strengthen the point being made. You can be the "dearest companion of (a person's) life" without there being any implication of homosexuality, which is why the footnoted quote seems strange as a choice to include. Surely- if such exists, which one imagines is the case given the other citations given- a quote rather less oblique to justify the statement re: the conclusions of some scholars would be far better. Still, I have no horse in the race and made the change on a whim, so no doubt my response is completely unnecessary, but as I say your notification appeared to warrant acknowledgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.208.8 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, just in the interests of doing the thing properly, I checked Faderman (also cited for the same statement), which gives, on p. 196 as the article cites, "... although Alice Freeman married a man, many of her faculty members found their happiness in Wellesley marriages. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, virtually the entire department at Wellesley was paired off in lesbian arrangements: Katharine Lee Bates with the economics professor Katharine Coman..." Notwithstanding the fact that the author appears to conflate "Wellesley marriages" with "lesbianism" (which as Wikipedia's article on the former makes clear is not a direct match by any means), surely a statement such as this is far superior with regard to supporting the statement "Some scholars believe the two women were a lesbian couple"? It's also perhaps worth noting Burgess's book doesn't contain a single instance of the word "lesbian", for the record! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.208.8 (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not an expert on Coman and didn't write that content, however I believe the editor who added it intended the footnote as an example of why some scholars may have certain impressions about her relationship with Bates. You might be right that the footnote adds more confusion than less, but it should probably be discussed on the talk page to get consensus for removing it. Your further points (2d post above) are interesting, but also best to bring up on Talk:Katharine Coman.Also, just for future edits, if your edit summary indicates why you're making a specific removal or addition, other editors are more likely to take that into account when reviewing the changes. When your edit summary says "spacing correction" and you remove a sourced footnote, it looks like vandalism. I'm glad that wasn't your intention and that you were thoughtful about the removal. I appreciate you explaining. Happy editing! Schazjmd(talk)00:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am Timwi, the editor (technically, admin) who recently engaged in very questionable editing choices and discussion behavior. As you may have seen from the link Axem Titanium provided above, my behavior has landed me in Arbitration and I may soon be losing admin status because of it.
I want to extend my sincerest apologies to you for the way that I treated you. There is no excuse for me targeting a passer-by such as yourself, who was just doing their regular Wikipedia editing in perfectly good faith. I did not pause to consider at the time what impact that must have had on you personally, but I do now, and that fills me with deep regret.
I am not saying this to make myself look good for the Arbitrators. If they decide that I am no longer fit to be admin, then I will accept that and move on. I am saying this because I’ve come to realize that I violated my own principle of striving to foster friendly collaboration in everything I do. This was an egregious personal failing on my part that I’m not going to be able to ignore or shrug off. I will meditate over this and hope to find a way to prevent it from happening again. It is very regrettable that you, a very dedicated and valuable contributor, got caught up in this. You did not deserve that.
If you decided that I embody everything that’s wrong about social interaction on Wikipedia, I understand and I don’t blame you. Nevertheless, for the sake of the greatest collaborative writing project in the world, I sincerely hope that your passion and dedication to the project continue unimpeded. Wikipedia deserves good people like you. — Timwi (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I had removed most of her Wikipedia page and I am almost entirely certain she wrote it herself to promote herself with her work. That is why I removed the abundance of quotes and photos, because even established actors don’t have all that. Wikipedia is not for promoting oneself, only to give information about something which is why I left in the basic facts about her. Nfhh5 (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nfhh5, when an editor removes a large amount of an article without explanation on the article talk page and no edit summary, it looks suspicious. That article does need pruning, but you went about it the wrong way. If you explain yourself in detail on Talk:Julia Sarah Stone and then refer to your talk page explanation in your edit summaries, your edits are more likely to be accepted. Schazjmd(talk)15:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what a fun user page. Boy do I hear that. The oldest extant version may be from the 13th century, but I'll bet it's a couple of millennia older and no doubt it's today's news. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rebroad, first of all, there is nothing in the article to connect "Kate Craig-Wood" with "Lilith Pandemos". Second, there is nothing encyclopedic about someone's playlist (ELNO #13); it's equivalent to social media (ELNO #10). Schazjmd(talk)20:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kubrickrules, we never update a BLP to say they died without including a reliable source. You can source it properly, or wait for someone else to do it. I'm not making that change based on a local affiliate that only cites a tweet and doesn't establish date of death. Schazjmd(talk)21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't. But Fabian, and other friends of his, are already posting about it on social media. It happened, and someone else will most likely edit it less than ten minutes from now. Suit yourself, though. Kubrickrules (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SchreiberBike | ⌨ , hope you're doing fine. I appreciate your efforts on improving pages like these. You recently reverted the information I added about the page owner's award and his company that is newly founded. I came across the link and I thought it was notable enough to be included on Wikipedia citation. Is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.202.228 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How should I present this information then? The game itself does not have a Wiki article, yet it seems to me that there should be a link for interested parties, however it is not clear that it is central enough to the main topic to include it in the "External links". SlySven (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlySven, readers can easily find the site through search. However, I've added a reference to that site to support the authorization from the Jordan estate. Happy editing! Schazjmd(talk)17:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience in letting me address your concern satisfactorily. As well as your thanks in acknowledgment. I know I’ve run into you before somewhere along the line, perhaps merely seeing your name in edit histories, but you are a credit here to WP:Civil. ;) Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, thank you, Wikiuser100. In return, I'm grateful that you took my question so well...I'm never sure when I post whether the other editor is going to take umbrage or get defensive, and I kind of dread doing it to be honest. The conversation with you on the article was a pleasure. Schazjmd(talk)22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I do not pay attention to venting or attacks and I have been called much worse but my concern was them doing to it someone else such as another reviewer. Thanks for reporting and to @Wikipelli: for doing their best to warn them. S0091 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, that's the fastest I've seen something escalate around here. And nobody should be subjected to comments such as those they made on their talk page, so I was happy to grab an admin's attention. So, back to ordinary editing, right? Schazjmd(talk)00:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I guess we shouldn't post on their "wall" anymore. They are still going at it but will tucker out at some point. And yep, back to it! :) S0091 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both me, you + others have made edits including references to LA Times, NY Times, Vanity Fair. I don't want to remove the notability tag that you put on the page without checking with you first. If you think this page now meets the criteria, can you remove? If not, let me know here and I will try and find more sourced material. Feel free to delete this section if the tag is removed and everything Ok. Thanks. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Birth was covered in 20+ newspapers. Wedding was covered in NYT. Notable enough at the time. Wikipedia guidelines are "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
We can take this discussion to the talk page if that is the more appropriate site for discussion.
Thanks for the edits! I might have noticed that mistake later - with emphasis on "might". Glad to see I'm not the only contributor here. DanielC46 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you're working on the article, DanielC46, could you condense the plot summaries for the books? The target is 400 to 700 words; these three plot descriptions are >1300, >1200, and >700 >1200, respectively. (MOS:PLOTLENGTH) Schazjmd(talk)17:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to do if you want to include as much vital plot details as possible; what I have written up is as condensed as can be. DanielC46 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DanielC46, plot summaries should focus on the major events to describe the book. These are excessively detailed. I thought it best to let you condense the summaries yourself, but I will do it if you prefer not to. Schazjmd(talk)17:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the condensing is done, DanielC46. To be honest, I find it odd to be including plots of other books in an article about a single book. Perhaps you can find reviews of the two sequels and give them each their own article. Schazjmd(talk)20:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to find relevant references on the net, but the information was too scarce to work with. I also just corrected some minor mistakes and restored important links to other articles. Hope you don't mind. DanielC46 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe since you just helped me, you might be able to help me with correctly adding "categories"? I just added some to that last article here, and would appreciate if you'd take a look to see if I added them properly in the wiki-markup? Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥22:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Th78blue, the problem with the article is notability. You don't have significant coverage in reliable sources for that company (and the Wikipedia community is pretty strict on companies, see WP:ORGDEPTH). Some of your sources aren't reliable, and I don't see significant coverage of Underwood Ammo as a company in any of them. I took a look for myself and can't find anything to support its notability, sorry. Schazjmd(talk)23:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is so interesting! This is one of the most well known companies in the industry that it is in, but then again, only industry groups would probably write about it, in addition to their products being for sale on nearly every retailer that retails such stuff. That seems like an area that might be tricky, if at all possible to get around, even if in fact the product is extremely well known. Thanks for checking for me! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥23:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. That is good to know! I can do my best to steer clear of companies then if that is in fact the case. You live and learn! Thank you again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥23:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the thinking on Wikipedia:Permastub's? As that essay highlights, Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion. That seems to apply in many cases that perhaps we are neglecting about some companies that aren't quite Coca Cola? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥23:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VernoWhitney, sorry if I'm wrong! I was relying on the pop-up for your account, it says administrator, VRT permissions agent, 44366 edits since: 23 November 2009, last edit on 3 May 2022. My apologies for not double-checking. Schazjmd(talk)17:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you! spoken like a pro, Grammar: When to use “bad” and “badly” in English. Does the food taste bad or badly ? most editors are rude and crude..Reverted 1 edit by 186.69.189.65 (talk): Not how we incorporate content, by pasting an entire other article into it; do it thoughtfully
Grammar: When to use “bad” and “badly” in English. Does the food taste bad or badly ? Thank you for reverting that annoyance ..a token of my appreciation. 2022 MAY- (UTC)
For you, since I'll need one too after this brutal AfD! One of my first articles, and been really trying to keep it alive even as a stub... but that is proving more and more difficult by the moment. Thanks for reviewing anyway... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥00:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the beer, Th78blue, thanks. This is a pretty tame AfD; some are much harsher. I know you've been working on the article, and I held off on participating but the latest refs were disappointing. Don't give up. It's just a matter of finding something that is "Wikipedia-notable" to write about. I'll be glad to take a look at refs you gather for any future articles and give you some feedback on whether they support notability. Schazjmd(talk)00:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not giving up yet. Anyone who knows anything about this industry could tell you that this should more than pass for notable, but I am indeed surprised by the somewhat light coverage of the company itself, though I would have thought that coverage of a companies products would suffice. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥00:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
and ♥. I prefer to work with wikimarkup in the "old" style of editing. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 21:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
(testing out a few). Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 01:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
VernoWhitney (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
