Jump to content

User talk:Nativeoftwostates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Nativeoftwostates! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of my addition of "The" to "Tampa Mayor," the other edits are due to the fact that I was raised in/lived in Tampa from 1972 to 1999--from the age of 9 to the age of 37.
The "tampon" joke was one that was asked this way "What do you call someone from Tampa? A tampon."
The Cincinnati Reds (this was back in the 70s and 80s, if I recall) were the only team that had spring training in Tampa, to my knowledge. Today, I understand it is the Yankees.
The edit about Burt Reynolds being a minority owner is not only from my own knowledge of Tampa history, but is also noted on Wikipedia's "Tampa Bay Bandits" page. The whole "Smoky and the Bandit" thing was played up to generate excitement. I don't know that it had anything to do with the movie, but Burt Reynolds played for Florida State University, etc., so it was all of a piece.
In any case, having lived there so long, I have a particularly solid grasp of that time period in Tampa. If you're willing, I hope you'll put the edits back in (although the "tampon" one may be too coarse).
Thank you, friend. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

I'm sorry

[edit]

Hey, I just saw the message you tried to leave on my user page. Just as a heads up, in future, if you want to message someone on here, use their talk page instead; that's what it's there for. Anyway, I want to sincerely apologise for my revert and very harsh warning. You didn't do anything wrong, it was entirely my fault. I wasn't familiar with the shortened form of "raccoon", so when I saw the edit, I took one look at it, falsely assumed it was just vandalism containing a racial slur, and reverted it with a harsh warning. I now see that I made a serious mistake.

I have removed the warning from the IP talk page. I hope this doesn't give you a bad first impression of editing Wikipedia. Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Not a problem, my friend. I totally get how someone who didn't live in the USA might think "coon" was a detestable racial slur. Have a good one--I appreciate your diligence in working to find vandals, etc. God bless you!

December 2022

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Oahu—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist...the reason I added the phonetic pronunciation is that it is not apparent from the spelling alone. Someone might pronounce it Ah-hoo...Oo--uh--hoo, etc. I think that it would be beneficial/constructive to include a pronunciation of the word in text form. Thank you. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a laudable goal, but there were several issues with your edit. The article did already had a pronunciation guide in IPA, which is the normal way that pronunciation is provided on Wikipedia; see MOS:IPA. The additional pronunciation you added ("uh-wah-hoo") is incorrect in several respects: it renders the initial long O /o/ as "uh", it renders the glottal stop /ʔ/ as "w", and it does not show which syllable is accented. It is possible to use a respelling system in addition to IPA to show pronunciation, but it should be done in a standard way, as explained in H:RESPELL. A correct respelling was added later in Special:Diff/1216491317. CodeTalker (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look for the pronunciation on the internet, the spoken word is pronounced as as I gave it. I do acknowledge that there are pronunciation guides, but many readers are not skilled in the usage of such, so a phonetic spelling is quite useful, I believe. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up a native Hawaiian speaker...and it is, indeed, different than I gave it. It would be, phonetically, Oh-ah-who. So, I stand corrected! Nativeoftwostates (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tales of the Gold Monkey, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, with respect, it seems clear that you have not read the Louis L'Amour books. I have. I would not have added the claim that there was a resemblance of his books to the source material had it not been apparent.
His writings about swashbuckling pilots and tramp steamer captains in the Pacific is too close to not notice. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the World Behind (film)

[edit]

Hello. Where is the source for this? Thanks. Mike Allen 20:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of schools in Hillsborough County, Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriots. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tampa, Florida, 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. CodeTalker (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm replying here to your last addition to this page because I think you meant it to be a reply to my 28 April message above, although you embedded it in the welcome message from Thegreatluigi at the top of the page. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable; that is, it must be supported by a published reliable source; see WP:V. Information based on personal knowledge and experience is not acceptable, even if true. To add the "tampon" joke, you'd need to find one or more published sources that report on it, although IMO it's probably too trivial to add even if such a source were found. The Burt Reynolds information you added claimed not only that he was a minority owner, which is probably easy to find a source for, but also that "his movie fame created additional attention and excitement". This claim would again need to be supported by a reliable source that makes that claim.
I hope this is helpful. CodeTalker (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Code Talker, who in the world would know any better than me that it added excitement? I was there. If I recall correctly, he even drove his Trans-Am onto the field. Consider, also, that "creating additional attention and excitement" would be considered subjective, regardless of the source. The Tampa Tribune (now the Tampa Times) has much of this info, but I am not so interested in giving Wikipedia a fuller picture that I would pay to search to archives. HOWEVER, if you want to read a little something about it in the old Tampa Tribune--that easily shows how Reynolds added some flair--here's the link: https://www.google.com/search?q=Tampa+Tribune+AND+%22tampa+bay+bandits%22+AND+%22Burt+Reynolds%22+AND+%22tom+mcewen&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS1096US1096&oq=Tampa+Tribune+AND+%22tampa+bay+bandits%22+AND+%22Burt+Reynolds%22+AND+%22tom+mcewen&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTI3MTk5ajBqNKgCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=JGwPPhk70-7ghM&vssid=l Nativeoftwostates (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please read WP:V. This is a Wikipedia policy. I understand that it can be counterintuitive that information that you know personally is not acceptable, but that is the way things work here. There are several articles that I could improve with my own personal knowledge, but I am not allowed to do so without sources. Otherwise, how would you or anyone else know that what I am saying is true?
The 14 March 1986 Tampa Tribune article that you cite is a step in the right direction, but I don't see anything in that article that says that Reynolds's involvement "created additional attention and excitement", it just says that Reynolds is no longer associated with the Bandits. CodeTalker (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read down the first column, you'll see how it was a "successful promotion." Also, in the last column, it is certainly understood that Reynolds' celebrity brought something to the table. If you're looking for that particular wording--"created additional attention and excitement"--I doubt those words were used in that manner. But it is clear that some of that was generated by his celebrity. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Codetalker,
Just a small point on the "tampon" thing. No "reputable source" would have printed that, so there is not one. And yet I absolutely know it to be true. I would assume that the joke may still be making the rounds, but since I graduated in 1981, I wouldn't know.
Just a thought to consider: Some truths are not found in published sources. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true, but things that are not found in published sources do not belong in Wikipedia. There are many things I also know to be true but cannot add to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of what has been previously published in reliable sources. See WP:V for more details about this policy, and note that it says "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that I'm repeating things that I already said to you last May. Please read WP:V if you haven't already done so. CodeTalker (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Nativeoftwostates! Your additions to Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Diplomat (American TV series), 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. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the previous messages on this page, it seems like there have been previous instances in which you've changed articles on the basis of your own experience or analysis. Perhaps this is an instance of that too. Doing so is very explicitly against Wikipedia policy, so please don't do it. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AntiDionysius,
This is from "Rolling Stone" magazine:
‘THE DIPLOMAT’ IS THE RARE NETFLIX SHOW THAT NEEDS MORE EPISODES, NOT FEWER
Rolling Stone magazine / October 31, 2024
"Few shows in recent memory have as good a handle on what they are as The Diplomat. That’s particularly impressive when you consider that the series — starring Keri Russell as Kate Wyler, a veteran State Department operative thrust into the job of America’s ambassador to Great Britain, in what is secretly an audition to replace the sitting vice-president — is often trying to be multiple shows at once: a knotty political drama, A SCREWBALL ROMANCE, a taut spy thriller, and a COMEDY OF ERRORS. Some of these individual pieces naturally overlap with one another, while others are placed together very carefully by the show’s creator, Debora Cahn, so that all improbably feel like part of the same appealing whole." Nativeoftwostates (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you want to add that review to the critical reception section you're welcome to do so.
But that quotation doesn't support the description "semi-parodic". And even if it did, that would merely allow us to say it was "described by Rolling Stone as semi-parodic"; to describe it in Wikivoice as a "semi-parodic political thriller series" would require us to show that that is a very widespread view among critics. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just generally, please provide sources for things as you add them to articles, rather than waiting for someone to challenge the issue on a talk page later. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AntiDionysius,
The reason I toned down the "screwball romance" and "comedy of errors" is because, having watched the entire season, it was NOT a "screwball comedy"; nor do I think it would qualify to be called a "comedy of errors." Why? For the very simply fact the connotation of those two terms is closely associated with outright--and even outrageous--comedy. "The Diplomat" is neither of those. Yes, it has humorous moments scattered here and there, but it is overwhelmingly serious, with these light touches thrown in.
Even if I am WRONG (and I'm not), nothing is lost by understating the fact. However, to overstate it--as does Rolling Stone--is somewhat egregious. If I had read that before watching "The Diplomat," I would have not only been disappointed (if, that is, I were looking to have viewed a screwball comedy), but I would have angry to find that it is a very serious drama (albeit with parody thrown in).
Just because something can be sourced does not mean it is correct. Do you suppose that the author of the Rolling Stone quote you provided is giving anything--anything--but his own experience and analysis? He/she most certainly is not. But the real difference between us is that...I'm right.
With sincere respect, I ask that you take time to watch the show. I feel confident that you have not done so, since you think my take is likely not as valid as one that is sourced. I challenge you to binge the show. If you think I'm wrong, I'll offer you a sincere apology. But I don't think you'll find me wrong. It's simply not a "screwball romance." At all.
I hope that Wikipedia, if it is going to make room for the opinions, analysis, and experience of others--just because they work for a magazine--will consider the thoughtful, educated analysis from those of us who don't work in the media.
In any case, I do hear you. If you wish to change it back, that's your call. But just know that I am right on this one. Nativeoftwostates (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched the show. But it actually wouldn't matter if I hadn't.
I ask that you take time to read Wikipedia's core content policies, particularly those on verifiability and original research. Because when you say "I hope that Wikipedia, if it is going to make room for the opinions, analysis, and experience of others--just because they work for a magazine--will consider the thoughtful, educated analysis from those of us who don't work in the media.", I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia can only feature analysis published in reliable sources - that is to say reputable media outlets, academic publications etc. The original research policy specifically exists to prohibit publication of the original analysis of our editors.
The point of Wikipedia is not to feature what we, as editors, believe to be the best representation of some higher, cardinal truth. The point is to be a summary of what reliable, published sources say about a given subject. If you think that media critics like those at Rolling Stone are generally wrong and you're right, that's fine, but Wikipedia still has to listen to them over you. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, my friend, and I understand. While I do respect publications--and understand the point being made--it seems somewhat unfortunate that things cannot be fine-tuned for the readership. If someone posts something that is utterly contradictory, I think that clearly demands that Wikipedia hold them accountable. But if someone is adding nuance or information that seems to go along with what is posted from "reputable" sources, it would seems to perhaps advance the cause. But, again, I do understand where you and Wikipedia are coming from. Thank you! Nativeoftwostates (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nativeoftwostates&oldid=1265844356"