Hello, Miner Editor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Eugene Cordero. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I am Thomas Meehan's niece. I happened to be looking on his Wikipedia page and I was surprised to see that the references to his work on Annie! did not mention his good friend Martin Charnin. Martin was the one who first approached Tom about working on the book for Annie! and went on to serve as Director and Lyricist (with music writer Charles Strouse). Not sure how this oversight occurred, but I am sure that my uncle, who died in 2017, would want Martin to be credited with his role in Annie! on his page. See this link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Annie_(musical)
If you would like to email me directly about any of this, my address is kmeehando@yahoo.com. Thank you! 2601:14B:C200:50CA:0:0:0:1009 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question was my restore of an unexplained deletion by an IP editor where their removal of this content was, and still is, their only edit. I have restored it and added a source I obtained from the "Cow tipping" article. Miner Editor (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that the deletion was unexplained, or that the editor only made one edit. Read WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Sundayclose (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're reverting vandalizing edits on Wikipedia for a long time. You can request for rollbacker and reviewer user rights to help you fight vandalism quicker. You can request them here. Just add a request under the Rollback and a request under the Pending changes reviewer. Happy editing! The person who loves reading (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The person who loves reading: Thank you, it is kind of you to suggest that. I actually had a request for rollback rights pending today, but then I made the mistake of thinking your alt was someone impersonating you and then templated you, and I removed my request. I will request rollback again once the embarrassment of making such a newb error is past, and when my most recent edits are impeccable. Miner Editor (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. More than 1000 edits is enough for requesting for rollbacker and pending changes reviewer. You can still put a new request after a few days and I'm sure that you will succeed (almost the same case as mine). A few mistakes don't really matter as long as you learn from the mistake (I also make several mistakes). The person who loves reading (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Miner Editor deleted an edit on the Doomsday argument page at 7:25am on April 9, 2023 with the comment "unsourced". This was a rollback of a good faith edit that in fact provides the only correct explanation of the issue discussed on that page. Miner Editor removed it without understanding the problem or the edit. A zealot like this should have no editing privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.70.237 (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice on your talk page that you, today, took issue with another editor who similarly reverted one of your edits containing apparent original research without providing a source or edit summary, and you similarly chewed them out for it. Their advice to you was solid and applies in this case as well. Miner Editor (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see (I was also an IP in the past too). I just noticed you were quite familiar with Wikipedia policy when you first joined judging from your edit history and wanted to ask. -- Shadowof theStarlit Sky15:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Peter Davenport. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)01:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. Yes, it was.
If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. I didn't "simply delete the visible vandalism." I rolled back the edits of an IP vandal which in no way caused anything unwanted to become "removed or overwritten," or put anything in danger of being "removed or overwritten". Miner Editor (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miner Editor! I wanted to apologize for reverting your anti-vandalism edits on the Conan Gray article; I was also trying to revert the vandalism and accidentally reverted your edits in the process. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section of articles is for the most important information about the subject. Your addition is trivial and very few people who come to wikipedia to read about egg creams are going to care about Spider Man. Putting it under a new "In popular culture" section might work, if you can find a secondary source. Miner Editor (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2A00:23EE:11F0:890:5081:AE51:6CAA:E20C (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that a source was not supplied. The source required is a dictionary. When you use the incorrect conventional word to accurately describe something, you need to review your use of language. The NIST WTC report is not a report but a work of fiction, and a conspiracy theory would be a more appropriate description. 2A00:23C5:A682:8901:A8BB:BC71:5E8D:FEA0 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You appear to be projecting. You are adding new material, I am challenging it. The wP:ONUS is on the one wishing to make the chang and that would be you: it is your restoration of challenged new material which is "edit warring", not me. Miner Editor (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the numerous errors you've made and the speed at which you revert, it's pretty apparent you haven't even read the sources used, let alone the unused sources on the matter. But if you want to keep editing a topic you know nothing about, that's your choice. ––FormalDude(talk)03:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing than is "pretty apparent" here is your need to make things personal and to emotionally lash out. I will allow it here, as long as you keep it within the grounds of Wikipedia policy. Miner Editor (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude(talk)03:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "stalking" you. I am using Huggle, which is anti-vandalism software. Huggle is alerting me to your edits, which I am then reviewing, and because they are objectively bad, am reverting them. Stop making objectivly bad edits, please. Miner Editor (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the big deal if people see my ip address. I don't care if I die or my family dies or people find my address. All I care about is Wikipedia, and I'm not trolling because that violates Wikipedia TOS I think BarneyTheFarmy (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a link on your talk page which describes our policy on editing while logged out. Please give it a read, come back, and after you have shown me you understand it, we'll discuss why the edits I reverted of yours are bad. Because you seem completely unwilling to learn, and I'm not into wasting my time. Miner Editor (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're being baited. State your defense short and sweet and don't give them what they want. Feel free to remove this if it's unwelcome. Arkon (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for persistent battleground behavior and personal attacks, you have been blockedindefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
The comment I contributed to the entry on the ENIAC was rejected by the Editor because there is insufficient references supporting it. My comment simply summarizes in a succinct statement that "
the ENIAC women were the developers of computer programming" is supported abundantly by the references cited through the ENIAC Wiki entry detailing the work, contributions and significance of the ENIAC women to the field that come to be known as computer programming. Anyone who knows what computer programming and its evolution would agree.
To save myself some time, I supply below the information supplied by Bing Chat on the ENIAC Women's role in inventing modern computer programming. Please add the following comment to the ENIA Wikipedia article: "The ENIAC women invented modern computer programming."
The ENIAC women played a crucial role in the development of computer programming. In 1943, six women were recruited to figure out how to program the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC), a massive computing machine commissioned by the U.S. Army that was used to calculate ballistic missile trajectories during World War II1. These women were Betty Holberton, Jean Jennings Bartik, Kay McNulty, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Ruth Lichterman, and Frances Bilas Spence1.
At the time, there were no programming languages or manuals, so the women had to figure out how to program the ENIAC from scratch using wiring and logical diagrams of the machine1. They worked as “computers,” a clerical job that involved solving complex equations that would be used to build firing tables for guns1. Their work effectively invented modern programming.
The ENIAC women not only programmed the first modern computer, but they also trained the next generation of ENIAC programmers and created modern computer science education. They went on to create the first computer instruction codes2. Their legacy laid the foundation for future innovations in computer programming. ''😊 173.54.200.22 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of urban legends, 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. Sundayclose (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. 2A00:23EE:2620:7305:8D18:B8CB:2E74:5934 (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
