Jump to content

User talk:FormalDude/Archive/4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


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.

Revert

OK, so apparently my edit to Blue_Cross_Blue_Shield_Tower was incorrect (I saw that the link was in a sentence followed by a reference dated in 2013, so I mistakenly assumed that the text must have been referring to the building that was known as CNA Center in 2013). But it would have been more helpful if you had fixed the link to point to the correct article, instead of simply reverting, and with a borderline disparaging edit summary to boot. I realize you were editing using a tool, but you're still responsible for all edits you make using that tool. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Yes, I was using the WikiLoop DoubleCheck tool, so I don't have control over the edit summary. I'm sorry it came across less than friendly. This is my first day using the tool and I'm still getting used to it. Normally I would've double checked before reverting an experienced editor's contributions. That was my mistake, and I apologize for not fixing the link myself. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:29, 20 August 204361 -->

Changes to the Maricopa election page

Moved to Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit § Changes to the Maricopa election page
 – ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:16, 23 A 19:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Short track speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's 1500 metres on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The New York Times on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at

21 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban for Johnpacklambert. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

CSD NOCOMMIES

Hi FormalDude! Love your new user page pic. I am thinking the quickest way to get rid of the WP:NOCOMMIES redirect is via WP:MFD. Would you consider removing your CSD? I don't think it meets one of the valid CSD criteria. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind! Already deleted. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: Haha, thanks! I'll probably change it back now so as not to call more attention to the essay. I would've been fine removing the CSD if anyone objected, luckily it was deleted as you said ☺ ––FormalDude talk 19:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It's too late now. You're forever a commie and should expect a ban at any moment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I accept my fate. ––FormalDude talk 20:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Cuomo on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 29 August 20ust 2021 (UTC)

Attention thief.

Could you mind your business?

. I was having a serious discussion with mentor. Get lost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boufflord (talk • contribs) 07:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was stealing your attention, @Boufflord. In all seriousness though, you should be civil please. ––FormalDude talk 07:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #483

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Wikidata2Ical
  • Development
    • Wikidata:Mismatch Finder development continues. We are now working on the frontend. First pieces are starting to be visible at https://mismatch-finder.toolforge.org (but nothing usable yet)
    • Fixed an issue with unicode characters in constraints checks (phab:T289805)
    • Worked on support for "separators" parameter for distinct value constraints (phab:T277855)
    • Continued work on allowing to restrict constraints to certain entity types (phab:T269724)
    • Continued work on new constraint type to ensure that the Item has a label in a particular language (phab:T195178)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Wikidata weekly summary #484

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • User:SuccuBot has made its 100.000.000th edit. It is the first user account in Wikidata to reach this milestone.
    • In the frame of a Google Summer of Code project a new tool, called WikidataComplete was created. The tool smoothly integrates in the Wikidata UI and proposes new statements extracted by machine learning algorithms. Editors are asked to either approve or reject them. To activate it check here for a short tutorial check here. Any feedback is welcome here.
  • Development
    • Continued work on the Mismatch Finder. We are now working on creating the page where mismatches will be listed for review.
    • Worked on support for "separators" parameter for distinct value constraints (phab:T277855)
    • Made it possible to restrict constraints to certain entity types (phab:T269724)
    • Added a new constraint type to ensure that the Item has a label in a particular language (phab:T195178)
    • Added a button for the Query Builder to query.wikidata.org to make the Query builder discoverable (phab:T276210) - integration in the example dialog is still in progress (phab:T280229)
    • We started work on some behind-the-scenes improvements to the way Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects are notified about a change that affects their articles. (They need this notification so the article can be purged and show the latest data from Wikidata again. It is also required for showing the edit in the watchlist and recent changes on those wikis. This should have no visible impact for editors but is needed maintenance work.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Stop your hateful ways

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a right to chose how they are referred to. Just because you do not wish to understand their theology and how that motivates their notions of choosing a name, does not mean it does not matter, or that it is justified to rudely ignore such desires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: No worries, my talk page is a safe space to vent your frustrations–feel free to stop by anytime. Though none of your statements about my actions or motives are true, I hope we can continue to work productively on this matter and on the project in general moving forward. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
A Venn diagram showing the relationship between Christianity, Mormonism, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not to scale)
I realize this isn't the best place to be discussing this, but JPL's statement above is not quite accurate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a right to determine its own name. And it has done just that. We on Wikipedia try to respect that. We always use the full name on first reference. But because the full name is somewhat unwieldy, we typically abbreviate it to "the LDS Church" or sometimes "the church" after that. This is normal. If we were writing an article about someone named "John Pack Lambert" we would use "John Pack Lambert" on first reference and then just "Lambert" thereafter.
The other issue is the word "Mormonism". We can't use the LDS Church's preference to justify scrubbing that word from Wikipedia. The church doesn't control that word, and Mormonism is bigger than the church. It's the name of the larger religion, and it's been that way for almost two centuries. Mormonism is the name of the religion; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the name of the largest church in Mormonism. The church can choose its own name. But scholars and years of common use determine the name of the religion. Does this make sense? ~Awilley (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your eloquent explanation. I ended up watching "The Correct Name of the Church" by Russell M. Nelson and I find it relevant only to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and even then, it does not mean they can only be referred to by what they are requesting. I do not find it relevant in any way to the Mormonism movement at large, nor to the history of this movement, other than the fact that they are the largest Latter Day Saint denomination. I completely agree with Awilley. ––FormalDude talk 13:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Awilley @FormalDude. This is very cogently argued, and gives much needed context to this JPL situation. I appreciate your clarity of thought. Thank you both. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Original Barnstar
i love your Hard-works especially the ones of the TeaHouse ☕🏠 —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Sakura emad. 😊 ––FormalDude talk 05:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
🥰☕ —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:00, 29 AuDonald Trump}}

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Keep up the good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Lee Vilenski! Seriously means a lot from an editor as experienced as you. ––FormalDude talk 21:06, 29 Augr 2021 (UTC)}}

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the sign thing to my message.

Your userpage is really pretty too :D ButterSlipper (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem, @ButterSlipper, I use a script that lets me do it with the click of a button. Thanks for the compliment. Anyways, you're heading fast towards an indef block. Not sure you want my advice, but I'd say you should probably not reply to every single comment on the AN/i thread. ––FormalDude talk 09:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh really? How come I shouldn't reply? I thought people comment to have discussion? I don't get the purpose of commenting if it isn't to have a discussion and share points. Also cool script. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@ButterSlipper: The people at ANI seem to want you to own up to it instead of trying to defend yourself. Also, you aren't being forced to reply. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
AssumeGoodWraith if that is true then they do not want to have discussion and contribute and yes I know I'm not being forced but I want to defend myself from some of the allegations that are false. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@ButterSlipper: With a very questionable history and supposedly showing no signs of trying to improve while ignoring their concerns, I'd believe they'd want to indef you for being consistently disruptive. I don't know the full story though, so I'm not certain. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
That does seem to be true but I am listening to each and everyone of their concerns; that is how I'm replying and yes my history is quite short and plagued with some errors but those are mistakes and I don't get the point of persecuting me for them. ButterSlipper (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@ButterSlipper: The point of the block is not punitive, but preventative. With no indication that the disruption will stop, you will probably be blocked. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Sealioning ––FormalDude talk 19:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
AssumeGoodWraith I understand but I have made many useful contributions to Wikipedia they do not oppose and I have made many concessions, apologies and reflections already. FormalDude please do not assume bad faith and go on about me sealioning because I am just not at all. I want to collaborate. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Milt's Stop & Eat, you may be blocked from editing. scope_creepTalk 08:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #485

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Upcoming:
      • WikidataCon update: you can now check in the program of the first day of the online conference
      • Transbordados: WikidataCon's preconference for Latin America - September 14, 21 and 28 (21h UTC) - with simultaneous translation for Portuguese and Spanish, via YouTube - set of events to discuss Wikidata and decoloniality, knowledge organization and digital dissemination of collections in Latin America contexts. Join us!
        • 14/09 - Towards a decolonial wiki: overflowing knowledge from the Latin American horizon - speakers: Amanda Jurno (Wiki Movimento Brasil), Bianca Santana (journalist, writer and activist) and Silvia Gutiérrez (El Colégio de México) - watch it in PT-BR / ES
        • 21/09 - The universe of libraries: Wikidata and the multiplication of knowledge potencies - speakers: Lilian Viana (GLAM das Bibliotecas da USP) and Maurício Genta (Wikimedia Argentina e Biblioteca Nacional da Argentina) - watch it in PT-BR / ES
        • 28/09 - Digital collections and Wikidata: organizing a network of knowledge - speakers: Evelin Heidel (a.k.a. Scann; Wikimedistas do Uruguai) and Karen Worcman (Museu da Pessoa) - watch it in PT-BR / ES
      • Demo of the Query Builder live on Twitch and in French by Vigneron, September 14 at 18:00 CEST
    • Ongoing:
      • Data Quality Days - several sessions happened over the past days and more are coming this week. Recordings, slides and notes are linked in the program
    • Past:
      • Forex - 36C3 Wikipaka WG: Live querying: let’s explore Wikidata together! - YouTube
  • Tool of the week
    • Wwwyzzerdd for Wikidata is a browser extension that allows you to view and edit Wikidata information from Wikipedia (demo video). Install it in Firefox or Chrome
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Face The Facts mobile app allows you to scan election posters and see the true facts about politicians.
    • Wikidata now has over 150,000 Senses on Lexemes!

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 16 Septem

Comment

Hello, FormalDude,

I think your consoling words on John's talk page were admirable but you are mistaken in stating that this is the first problem that has come up with his editing. If you do a search of ANI archives, you'll probably find at least a half dozen times that JPL has been brought to ANI in the past (if not a dozen). Especially a few years ago, he was a frequent subject of complaints at ANI in disputes, one which even made mainstream news outlets outside of Wikipedia. Just wanted to change your perception that this was a harsh overreaction to John's current mistakes, there have been problems that have existed for years. Personally, although I disagree with John about many things on Wikipedia, I do hope he gets unblocked with certain restrictions but the community's patience may be exhausted at this point. We shall see. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Liz. I was not aware of the extent of their previous ANI disputes. Your elaboration certainly changes my perception, and is much appreciated. What restrictions do you think would be appropriate in this situation specifically? ––FormalDude talk 06:16, 26 August 20gust 2021 (UTC)

Political career of Trump

{{movedto|Talk:Political career of ust 2021 (UTC)

Sir please reveiw this page and tell me mistakes

sir please review or accept this page that time you decline this page but this time please see and reply my mistakes if this person is not suitable on wikipedia I have fix all things so please review and publish it https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Brij_Kishore_Sharma_%27Tara%27 2409:4043:68D:ECF3:D19D:7FF6:20A4:DA6B (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time due to not meeting the notability guidelines for people. I have done a thorough search for any and all sources that may allow this article to be included on Wikipedia, and there are none. Please do not attempt to resubmit the draft at this time. ––FormalDude talk 11:04, 30 Augd=21946142 -->

Dan Marino was 2nd Team NEA All-Pro. Please fix this.

{{Moved discussion to|Talk:Dan Marino#Dan Marino was 2nd Team NEA All-Pro. Please fix this.|2=FormalDude talk 12:17, 1 Septembed=21983366 -->

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elvis Presley on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Milt's Stop & Eat (9 September 2021)

Information icon Hello, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Milt's Stop & Eat have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Additing promotional content into Milt's Stop & Eat. scope_creepTalk 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @FormalDude: The reason I posted this note, is that listing information on a Wikipedia article that is found on the their website and offered in their press-releases is promotional. It is no purpose apart from that. The reader can easily go to the website and pick the information first hand, so what is the point of offering it second-hand. All it does degreade us. The article itself is drab and mediocre to the extreme. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Take it to AfD again then, @Scope creep. I know you enjoy that. ––FormalDude talk 08:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't enjoy Afd at all to be honest, and I gave it up three months ago as its broken and not fit for purpose. This restuarant article is an example of that. It is elevation of the mediocre, the common and the drab, to special staus that bugs me. There is not one approach that this outfit uses, that is not used by restuarants all over Europe, America, Australia, Japan and so on. I can't understand why you can't see that? Perhaps because we are in different generations, and you fundamentally see it different. Either way, no doubt the sentence will be back in next week, or tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Are you saying the restaurant is not unique? If so, I agree for the most part. That's not a qualifier I use for determining notability though. The only thing special about this restaurant is its age, and the fact that it has been preserved to look the same as it did in the 1950s. Again though, that's not what makes it notable in my opinion. I simply think it meets GNG. ––FormalDude talk 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: No its not unique, nor even old or vaguely old, nor special in any manner. Age is something you don't have an appreciation of. There is many 10k's of restaurant in all parts of the world that look the same as when they were built, their interiors preserved, so that is not qualifier either. So you say it meets GNG without specifying a reason. Nebulous thinking without any rational thought. Is that your approach? No wonder Wikipedia is filling with the drab and the mediocre and the common. It will become a directory of the routine. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Age is something I have a great appreciation of. There are very few restaurants in the western United States that date back to the 1950s.
Also, please don't insult my stance when you never even asked for me to explain my rational. I went over why the article meets GNG in the recent AFD discussion. I'll be happy to explain it for you again, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make you understand something, that's your responsibility.
Also, no need to ping me on my own talk page. ––FormalDude talk 02:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The current consensus is that adding information on what a company sells into an article, is promotional and breaks Wikipedia Terms of Use. No, its your responsibility. So far I've not had a cogent argument. I never read your Afd. You really don't have appreciation of age, I suspect. If you did you would have done the work. They're are hundreds of restuarants in the US that are more than 100 years old, they are quite common. The simplistic will turn Wikipedia into a directory, which is rapidly happening, at our expense. scope_creepTalk 04:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milt's Stop & Eat. I don't care to continue this discussion with you. ––FormalDude talk 05:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry, I don't plan to read it. These discussions put me in a downer. scope_creepTalk 05:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I did read it. I've got to say that is a load of tosh. What you did was spin up a whole bunch of clickbait and PR to make it look like genuine references. scope_creepTalk 05:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I never realised you wrote that article. You should have mentioned it. Defending your own work is perfectly natural. scope_creepTalk 05:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I thought you realized I wrote the article or I would have mentioned it.

Anyways, you should realize this small restaurant doesn't have a PR team, or a marketing department, or likely even any publicity intentions. I wouldn't be surprised to see the owners flipping the patties. If some secondary sources think that clickbait is the best way to disperse their information, I can't help that. But it does not change the accuracy of the facts that they share, nor does it change the genuineness of the sources. This has been a long discussed topic by the community, and there is a consensus that clickbait does not automatically imply unreliability or that a source shouldn't be used. For this article I primarily used reliable secondary sources. I don't believe any of them are overtly promotion, even if they were mostly feature stories and human-interest pieces. ––FormalDude talk 05:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I never realised. They do. All businesses live in the internet age and pay to produce advertising content. All of them, everywhere, or they don't survive in the internet age.
Some history. With the coming of the internet age, newspapers were eviscerated in the literal and organic sense, due to social media, taking their content, in every country, which lead to many newspapers, journals and magazines shutting down or losing their journalists and becoming effectively an online presence, offering lifestyle content. That was world-wide phonomena. It is known thing. It led to many of them shedding their reputation, started to take content that before they wouldn't have touched with a bargepole. They had to survive, and pay the bills. So you will see a lot of this PR type stuff in newspapers and it doesn't make it a good references. Clickbait is just that. It is written to deliver you to a page, not to read, to satisfy an academic need to learn. Clickbait is the lowest crap, its junk and worthless. More so it pollutes the place. And defending it, is the lowest. The reason that people are starting to perhaps accept it, is because it is common, not because it is academically good, or better than what came before. It is marketing people who write it, without a thought. When journalists used to write content, some still do, it was highest calling. They went throught an ethics course that ensured they valued the reader to an extent that ensured they received only salient facts, to inform and learn. Clickbait and PR is the exact opposite of that. They have no concern for the reader. It is poison to this encyclopedic. It is short lived, low-quality information. That is well understood by everybody. If your basing your approach on that, then you need to change, because all you write, will end up being deleted, if not now, then when you leave. Your effecively saying the reader has no value. They are not worth my time creating good content with good sources. That is your approach. Change it. If you wanted to write good content, you would choosen a resturant that was 600 years old, that was involved in some wars and had reams of decent sources all over the shop, going back centuries. Do it. scope_creepTalk 05:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You're significantly jaded on this topic. I don't have time to address everything you said, and, frankly, it sounds like you're set in your ways and not open to other viewpoints, so I'm not gonna bother. ––FormalDude talk 07:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Not really. I follow consensus. For a long time I have worked in those areas of Wikipedia where those folk that don't have Wikipedia in their best interests, come in, like the UPE crowd, the spammers, the vandals, the trolls, those with COI, NPOV agendas and so on, those who want to promote, subvert or destroy something. It probably does make you jaded. You see the same patterns all the time. I had this long conversation to try and convert you, or at least the audience. scope_creepTalk 07:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I think what it boils down to is you're a deletionist and I'm a prescisionist. ––FormalDude talk 08:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Milt's Stop & Eat (13 September 2021)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Milt's Stop & Eat. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. scope_creepTalk 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: You seem to think it is ok to add promotional content in Wikipedia. It is not OK. Your are currently making an attempt violate Wikipedia Terms of Use, that prohibits advertising. Eventually you are going up to be coin, because so far you have had an article that has been A7's and then you have created this crummy mediocre article that following the pattern of somebody who has been paid to promote. scope_creepTalk 08:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, nice to see you did some digging from over four year ago to bring up my only article that's ever been deleted which also happened to be my first article ever created. You're making a completely false allegation and casting WP:ASPERSIONS by implying I was paid to create this article. I have explained on the talk page why it is not promotional content. Please stop edit warring and stop harassing me with template warnings. You should leave more than a single talk page comment before you make incessant reverts. ––FormalDude talk 08:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
P.S. again, scope_creep, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. It sends me a notification automatically just for editing the page. ––FormalDude talk 08:51, 13 Septemd=21994655 -->

Coin

I see you have reverted that. The form is to answer it, which you have not yet. I posted you up to the WP:COI noticeboard, this morning. Removing these types of tags is really bad form. It doesn't answer the question of why you want this information in the article when it is promotional and going all out to do it, which makes me more suspicious. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I never noticed your declaration. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Yeah my removal was telling you to screw off because the content I added is not promotional and it's ridiculous to suggest I have a COI because of that. How about you practice some damn form and discuss on the talk page before throwing template warnings at me left and right? ––FormalDude talk 17:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Scope, this is nonsense. The article was just scrutinized at AFD and closed to keep. If it were based on invalid sourcing, that would have been determined in the AFD. This article is typical of tens of thousands of articles on marginally notable subjects -- video games, pop music artists, local landmarks, and many others. And its harmless. Your insistent postings appear to be hounding. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll note there's plenty of those marginally notable articles that don't have sourcing anywhere near as good as NatGeo, Chicago Tribune, and the LA Times. Why don't you focus your efforts there? Check out Category:Articles lacking sources. ––FormalDude talk 18:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Actions and comment

@FormalDude: There is a rough consensus on Wikipedia that locations combined what is being sold is promotional and breaks the Terms of Use. Do you understand that? scope_creepTalk 07:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. Have you ever looked at any articles of businesses? ––FormalDude talk 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Your not assuming WP:AGF. Did I happen to wake up four days ago and say, I'm going to hassle FormalDude. I see 3 or 4 folk with the same attidude as you every week. They pass through coin or afc or npp, or I come across them in discussion, and I see the sames patterns evey week. Do you think its true because somebody else has created a crap article somewhere else on Wikipedia, that gives you right to create a crap here as well. Is that your argument? Your one of the worst editors I've came across on Wikipedia. Your intransigent and stubborn. I have no time for you. scope_creepTalk 07:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You are clearly projecting now. ––FormalDude talk 19:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #486

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Press, articles, blog posts, videos
    • Videos
      • Mapping the Scottish Reformation - using Wikidata, Wikipedia's sister project - YouTube
      • OpenSym 2021: WDProp: Web Application to Analyse Multilingual Aspects of Wikidata Properties - YouTube
      • Wikipedia Weekly Network - LIVE Wikidata editing #53 (user scripts and gadgets that can help you edit) - YouTube


You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Why I like the current compromise

So to me the main issue is that I think editing contents of Category:1922 births is a workable compromise. It is very limited in its scope. It is very clear what is being done. It is very easy to see that all article edits are only falling within that category. There may have been other categories we could have worked out, but it actually works out to be one of the largest categories where we can avoid BLP issues. I really think it is a workable place to start, and I think I can show that I can make positive contributions to the project over it. I have had some very what I feel are positive discussions with others over very precise issues that arise from the 1922 births. I know that in the past I had an issue with being too quick to move articles into Category:Possibly living people. However over the last 2 months I have gone through all of 1923 births, and I believe some of 1924 births, and have been very reserved in movements related to this issue, much more seeking sources. There was one person who I thought about moving, but instead I searched for articles on the person (I believe a woman, but it is hard to remember for sure who it was) death. After finding no direct mention of the person's death, even though I think I had not found any less than 10 year old mentions of them being alive either, I decided that the person seemed to be notable enough that I would expect to be able to find a mention of their death if they died, and so it was likely they really were still alive at 97 or 98, even if no one seemed to have taken any notice of them at all over a decade. I feel that this is a workable way to move forward, and I really like the idea of another editor to focus instead of on bans on things that can be done, and Category:1922 births creates a clear example of what can be done. I think this is a workable comproomise, and there is no reason to make any long term decisions until we see what happens in the future. The reality is that my main point is adding categories to the articles related to World War II, I have no nefarious plan to open the door to editing the article on the father of someone I often use as an example in my talk page A-because I had forgotten that his father was born in 1922 and B-because as that article stands, even if I could edit it, which as I say I have no intention of doing so, I have no idea what sort of edit I would realistically make. It clearly is in line with the current MOS guidelines related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I have basically accepted that reality dictates there will not be significant changes in what the MOS says for a decade or more, unless there are significant developments beyond what we have currently seen in language usage and related issues. Assuming that the changes in name use and practice in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instituted by President Russell M. Nelson all stick, and there is not some other major change in name use and practice, than maybe in 10 years, but probably in more, there will be time to reconsider some of our major guidelines on the matter, but I doubt anytime before that will there be a willingness to consider the sources in ways that cause change, and I have little hope that I would be able to be a positive contributor on the discussion even in 10 years, but maybe I should not give myself so little hope. Anyway, my main point is even if I had remembered that Walter Gong was born in 1922, knowing that fact would not have at all influenced my decisions to pick that year because A-I recognize it is far, far too soon to touch an article related in any way to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no matter wether or not it will ever be other than too soon on that matter and B-As I have tried to say, I see absolutely no change that I would think would currently be helpful in the article on Walter Gong. I could name another peorson in 1922 who I did remember was born that year, but his article is also very well organized and I see no reason to edit that article. I probably could think of some other article from 1922, or if someone was trying really hard they might be able to invent such a claim, but I had no particular article in mind in choosing 1922. I choose 1922 because I was already in process of going through the contents of 1922 births, and that is why I began with Dixon. I actually did create some notes on possible revisions for some earlier articles in D that I reviewed after the block came into play and before it was removed, but I decided not to follow up on any of those issues and just start fresh at the point where I had come to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, @Johnpacklambert. I too believe working on Category:1922 births is a workable compromise with a limited scope, and I trust your intentions that it will allow you to continue to be a beneficial part of Wikipedia. You seem to be taking extra care and being very diligent, that is admirable and appreciated. My only concern is that this compromise may not be reconciliatory enough for the community. Based on all the comments I'm seeing, it sounds like something permanent is needed. That is why I proposed a permanent tban for religion and BLP topics broadly construed. I believe those are the two areas for the most concern, and they should not largely impact your ability to edit Category:1922 births. Since that was the plan anyways, I saw my proposal as keeping in line with your compromise while specifying restrictions that the community was already leaning towards.
As for your comments about the MOS guidelines for the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, significant headway has been made on that, and we've updated MOS:LDS based on your initial protests actually. I agree that sweeping changes are likely a ways out, but incremental changes can be made, and that is, in my opinon, the best way to do so when dealing with such a ubiquitous term. ––FormalDude talk 21:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Removing a subsection that is based on 3 RS dated to TODAY is not me acting "less than nuetral". This has just been reported and may end up being nothing (constituting WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE) or it may withstand and become part of the article, maybe it's own subsection. It's not a poor decision to remove a major content change that is not based on longterm significance or coverage. Also edit summaries aren't supposed to be a paragraph long articulated argument, they are just a brief reason. Another thing is arbitration restrictions on Trumps article promote once a new edit is reverted (as I did) it should be discussed before it is reinstated. It would have been better for you to have opened a discussion than revert my revert. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: The arbcom restriction on Donald Trump is a 24-hr BRD cycle which only applies to restoring reverts of your own edits. It does not apply to restoring the reverted edits of others (as I did).
A single subsection consisting of two sentences is not "a major content change" especially given what it covers is considered one of the most unprecedented events to ever occur in the history of American politics. So yes removing it on grounds of WP:WEIGHT seemed quite less than neutral, to say the least. ––FormalDude talk 03:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Any new subsection is major, adding a sentence or two somewhere is what I consider to be non-major. I don't believe WP:WEIGHT is concerned about what editors feel is unprecedented or not. What matters is what has coverage, and for articles like Trump's significant coverage that has proven long lasting relevance. I can think of few situation it would be reasonable to add a new subsection on the first day. Also why do you feel this is a neutrality question? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
No offense, but I can tell you don't know a lot about the topic the subsection covers. I was assuming good faith, but it has become clear to me that you're using confirmation bias to justify removing a point of view that you don't like from the article. If you're really that concerned go ahead and bring it up at Talk:Donald Trump. ––FormalDude talk 04:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't care enough at this point to really bring it up in the talk page. You never assumed good faith if you immediately revert an edit and then go to the editors talk page and say they aren't neutral enough. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fez, Morocco

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fez, Morocco you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello All my work is proposed for deletion. All? All films are on imdb. Why me? Why not all Egyptian films? Why only my work? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masry684: I didn't propose anything for deletion, I created AFD discussions, allowing for community consensus. Furthermore I did not do this for all of your articles, only the ones I found to not meet WP:NFILM, which were several. ––FormalDude talk 20:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Help

I want to know how to make this article more better by that wikipedia can accept it https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Brij_Kishore_Sharma_%27Tara%27 I only want to know how to make this better please sir 2409:4043:68D:ECF3:D19D:7FF6:20A4:DA6B (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Right now the article contains only primary sources. In order to be acceptable for Wikipedia, the article requires reliable secondary sources. A secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. For example, a book review, or an author profile by a published magazine, etc. I did search for any examples of these sources for your article, but was unable to find any. ––FormalDude talk 09:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended response to SPECIFICO's comment at Talk:Donald_Trump#Immigration_line_for_intro

His actions sure indicate a hostile attitude towards immigration. His unprecedented travel ban affected legal migrants and illegal migrants alike. FormalDude 02:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Please rely on sources and not your opinions. Trump favored immigration of white professionals and others he felt qualified. SPECIFICO 13:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump has a demonstrably hostile attitude towards immigration. I encourage you to do some research into the reliable sources existing on this topic, many of which I will provide for you here.

The Trump administration was more hostile to immigration and immigrants than any administration in decades, making it harder for people to visit, live or work in the United States and seeking to reduce the number illegally entering the country.

January 27th, President Trump signed into law an executive order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” The order prevented students, visitors, refugees, and legal, green-card-holding permanent U.S. residents from entering the United States. Some, who were in the air when the order was signed, were detained upon arrival, despite whether or not they held immigration permits or visas. The order enacted a ban on all refugees, as well as a barred nationals and dual nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia from entering the United States. According to Trump, the ban would last 90 days and was to “review and implement the most secure policies”. This ban lasted four years and was not fully repealed until the Biden administration. Trump said over and over during his campaign that he would restrict all Muslims from entering the U.S.—which transformed into what reliable sources describe as at best “extreme vetting." Political analysts contend that the purpose of this order was to restrict Muslims from America overtime. If you don't find these actions to qualify a hostile attitude towards immigration, I can't help you.

Sources:

Draft:Pauline_Curnier_Jardin

Dear FormalDude, could you specify which types of sources in my draft https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Pauline_Curnier_Jardin are not reliable? In the filmography section for example, I have added links to instututional websites that proof the existence and publicity of each of Curnier Jardin's films. What could I do more? Many thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artgreenpink22 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Artgreenpink22 I added some additional feedback to the article. ––FormalDude talk 17:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent move discussion

I am quite happy with the outcome of the page move discussion (Tiananmen square), my objections were technical not emotional. Although I am very surprised it happened. I thought many of these pages were tied up by politics and the status quo was unmovable. I know these discussions are not meant to be votes, even though they so often are, to that extent I admire the administrator for being bold. What is your take, is there something as a newbie I am missing? Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dushan Jugum. First off, I wouldn't consider you a newbie. It looks like you've been here since 2004 (wow!) and have a few thousand more edits than me. So I don't think there's anything you're missing, but I'm happy to share my thoughts.
As the nominator I am also pleased with the result. I came into this knowing that it has been tied up by politics for a while–there have been eight requested moves for the article since 2011. So I wanted to propose something that was both realistic and hadn't been proposed before. I think the dam of people opposing "massacre" in the title finally broke when a good comprise was offered. I think the closer did a great job evaluating the discussion and I believe the close accurately reflects the current consensus. ––FormalDude talk 05:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain specifically why you tagged this article as you did. I can't locate the issue. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I explained in my edit summary, but I'll go into further detail.
1. Copyright violation of text from http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_toolbox_organic_forms. Reason: not properly attributed under given license.
2. Copyright violation of text from https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00518 which is likely of not under an acceptable copyright license for use on Wikipedia.
The first issue can be fixed by attributing the source as they declare necessary. The second issue can be resolved by rewording and paraphrasing the text instead of copying it verbatim. ––FormalDude talk 21:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But neither of these are copyright violations. If you look at how these sources are cited in the article, you will find it says for each of them: Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. And you can check online yourself that these are indeed the licenses the sources were published under. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry for the inconvenience. ––FormalDude talk 21:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HotNewHipHop.com (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@TheBirdsShedTears This was not my draft. ––FormalDude talk 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, FormalDude! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FormalDude/Archive/4&oldid=1147479710"