User talk:Onel5969/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onel5969. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 12: November 2014

November 2014

Reversion of change to John Wick (film)

Reply in change to John Wick (film) I made this change using the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film to provide a summary to users who have not yet seen the film and would like to read a plot summary without reading the plot to the entire movie. I believe this change is in accordance with the style guide and other film pages and that page is better with it. Thegrs (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: Recent edit to Return of the Jedi

"My understanding, from the sources, is that it was originally released simply as Return of the Jedi, and later the Star Wars episode was added."

I'm afraid not. Both Empire and Jedi were both theatrically released as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" on May 21, 1980, and "Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi" on May 25, 1983. They were not changed for the Special Editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Are You Being Served? characters

Why did you revert my last edit to List of Are You Being Served? characters?-2601:8:3200:5F8:4D7C:3F7B:5FF8:9D64 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it made absolutely no sense. Onel5969 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditmar, Raymond Ditmars filmmaker

Dear Onel1959,

Raymond Ditmar was a herpetologist and yes, a great silent filmmaker! Have a look at the biography, I have added two silent movies. Ditmar was a great naturalist and scientific film maker about biology - you can also check with IMdB. So i hope you agree when i revert your change. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert good edits. Let's build Wikipedia. Hansmuller (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: Hi. I don't revert good edits. I revert bad edits, ambiguous edits, unsupported edits, non-constructive edits and of course, vandalism. When I checked Ditmars wp article, there is no mention (and still isn't) of any filmmaking activity, in the body of the article. (Truth be told, I did not look at the media, since those should be in support of material in the article, it didn't occur to me that the pics/videos would be additional to the article). Might I suggest that you be bold and add that information to his article, citing the biography (imdb is not a reliable source, as per wiki guidelines), as I see you've added the imdb reference (which really should be an "External link" rather than a reference - check out other bios of film people). Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You could just say sorry, if you delete too much (now twice), i do too! Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And you could learn what the definition of vandalism is here in wp... as well as familiarizing yourself with the concepts WP:IUC, WP:AGF. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You. Jefferey M. Gordon.

My name is Benjamin DeGonia. 626 Peacock Circle. Granite City. Illinois. 62040. I, my father and Daughter, just love to try and reach out to you. We count you as blessings. You're. Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.87.63 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Without Orders

See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bzuk: - Hi! Nice work on this article. I'm working my way through all the RKO films in my spare time, trying to bring as many of them to B class as I can (although with these early films, the dearth of material can make that difficult). I'm only up to 1931 - it's a tough slog at times. Also trying to get rid of all the redlinks - either by creating articles for folks who should have them, or be simply deleting the redlink. I use a determining factor of about 25 films for actors, and 20 for production personnel.

I like the breadth of your discussion. I would probably move the note regarding the stewardess taking control of the aircraft up into the production section, rather than as simply a footnote - firsts in films are big deals and should be treated as such - especially one which has become such a standard in film.

Regarding removing the redlinks - please try not to do this. For example, in this film, the only person who most likely will never have an article is Frances Sage (who only did 3 films). May Boley may not get one either, she only had minor roles in about 25 films, but she might. Everyone else worked on more than 50 films, and when I get to this film, they'll all get articles. But some of them will get articles before then, such as Charles Kerr... When I get to Traveling Husbands, he'll get his own article, so the redlink will go away at that time. I hope that all made sense. Btw... also an old pilot here.

Regardless, nice work. And I really appreciate you taking the time to let me know you were working on the article. Hopefully, we can work together in the future. Onel5969 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi One. Nice to hear from you. I do appreciate your resolve and commitment to improving the wikiwacky wonderland. As I had worked in film documentaries for many years, it has become an interest of mine, especially in Canadian aviation films, to chronicle the many obscure and minor films that are out there. As to some of your comments, the reasoning behind the separate note to readers was that the assertion that a "first" occurred in Without Orders was not as well documented as I would have liked. I tried to corroborate the claim and was not sure that the author was correct. As to "red-links", I guess I have been a bit too callous about who will or will not actually be a future wikilinked subject. I used to leave them all in place, and was chided about the lack of referencing that exists when a reader comes upon a "forest of red". The idea that you are working on creating real links to eliminate the "redlinks" is commendable. I often just run out of steam as I revise an article. I am, and have been, an ~~old~~ "veteran" pilot, writer (someone, as a joke, named me as an RCAF historian), librarian (by trade) and commercial artist (in order to stay broke through my formative years). Now, working on Sky Giant, another Lew Landers 1938 production. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Highly inaccurate data

You reverted my edit on Kanasi City, Missouri's Irish population. It originally said the Irish population of Kansas City is 250,000. That seemed highly suspect to me since that is 1/3 of the entire population! I went and looked up the actual data which says ~50,000. I updated and provided references. You reverted my hard work to reinstate faulty numbers. Why? This is bad editing and bad for community. Why should I do hard work of improving the accuracy of articles only to have it REMOVED entirely? If you think that is better to use a rough estimate, then update it to an estimate, based on current data. If you want to use historical data, then use the past tense. Frankly, I doubt there were ever 250,000 Irish people in Kansas City unless for some bizarre reason the population used to be much much higher than it is now. Are you trying to deceive people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobin (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, bad editing is bad for the community, which is why your original edit was reverted; per WP it was way too specific, and in addition you removed cited information. The change that you have now added to the article is much better. Might I suggest that your familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? Onel5969 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove the citation. I removed the inaccurate information which said that the Irish American population is 250,000 when in fact it is only 50,000. You deleted my accurate citation and reinstated the faulty number. Honestly, I don't believe that number belongs there. It has no date attached to it and is unlikely that it was true whenever it was added. The only reason I left it there was so you wouldn't revert the true figure again.Ajobin (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the 250,000 number could have been accurate when it was added? I suspect it was always incorrect. Why did you insist on reverting to that number? Why did you delete my number which had a reliable and verifiable online source? If your concern was truly that it was too specific, then you could have just changed it to a more general number, like I did ... after you deleted my work ... including my citation. I never deleted anyone's citation. I just removed the inaccurate information saying that the population is 250k. Do you insist on keeping the inaccurate number and why?Ajobin (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I impugned your motives, but I would like you to explain them. You removed a verifiable source (rather than just changing it to the rough estimate you prefer) and reinstated a unverifiable primary reference source with an estimate which is 5 times the verifiable number. Why? Ajobin (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that number was true when it was added. It is 5 times the present number. I am going to remove it. If it had been a reference to the past, I might try to obtain the book to check. But is was worded in the present tense, which is highly inaccurate. I will preserve the reference. Ajobin (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Hi there... I was under the impression that notable alumni lists did not necessarily need to have linked articles for each name (as per Wikipedia:Notable alumni) as long as they could meet the criteria of notability with cited sources. Would a news reporter on a major television network (well in this case their local CT affiliate) not qualify? Not asking you to revert it back, just clarification for the future as I'm still new to Wikipedia. Thanks. IrishRhino (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi IrishRhino - You're absolutely right, having your own article is only a good indication of whether or not someone is notable, but it's almost always correct. I think one of the reasons is a single citation next to a name doesn't prove notability. When there is a redlink without sources, it's simple, delete the entry. Your entry, (and btw, like what you've done on this list), had a reference, so I do a quick Bing/Google search, and that local newscaster didn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. The problem with "notable lists" is that they are borderline trivia, not that they are, but there has been much discussion about their inclusion. That was one of the reasons the guideline regarding their own article was put into the guidelines. Another issue (which has no bearing on this particular edit, but since you said you were new) is how is that person related to a particular city. If they were born there, that's a no-brainer; as is if they lived there for any appreciable time. If a town has a noted college/university, famous alumni, if their only connection with that city is attending that institution, usually go on a separate list, just so it's clear what their relationship with the city is. Same with cities which have a large military installation nearby (here in Phoenix, that would be Luke AFB, for example). Thanks for asking, btw, definitely a good thing on WP... hope this answer helps clarify. Onel5969 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 and thanks again for the tips... it makes sense. I think that for some people, notability can actually be a little confusing at times for because it's quite relative. Especially when dealing with small towns/communities. Anyway, thanks again for your help!IrishRhino (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty Cure Episodes

Hi there. I'm complaining about a user with IP: 116.123.152.199 who adds unnecessary info to the pretty cure episode summaries. This has been happening for ahwile and I left wikipdea because I felt unappreciated....then when I came back the useless lines were there again! The user keeps adding info on future series to the following pages:

it's usually something like "what will happen to XX characters" from the next series who do not even appear in the last episode. In the series cannon each year(minus the sequels) is a full reboot. Adding any characters from future series makes no sense. I thought I'd come to you as you seemed like a mod and I don't wana get involved in a edit war Darkcat1 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Darkcat1: - Hi! Yeah, these ip edits keep coming up on the vandalism program I use. I'm not an admin, however, just an editor trying to help out when I can. One thing I can do (and just did) was to request that an admin put all 8 of the pages under "page protection", which means that only confirmed users (no ips) can make edits. It can take a day or two for someone to get around to it, but considering the number of times these ips have been reverted, I can't see why they wouldn't. Right now, I monitor about 1500 pages, so I can't specifically keep taking a look at these, but let me know if they aren't protected by Sunday, and I'll see if I can't contact an admin directly. There's one or two I speak with occasionally. Hope this helps, and keep editing. Onel5969 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Onel5969. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference to the edit on Karachi page

Hi there. Thank you for informing about the change you just undid. Well, I thought it was good to mention about "Fatimiyah School" in that article as it is also a similar community school as Al-Murtaza school. This was the reason I placed it next to Al-Murtaza School. Also, you can find the name of Fatimiyah School in the article "List of schools in Karachi" here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Karachi#Private_schools

Hi. While no hard and fast "rule" exists, the guideline is for something added to a list to have it's own article. This makes it likely that the subject has passed the notability guidelines. WP:ISNOT shows that WP is not simply a list of trivial information. Articles tend to pick up lots of non-notable list entries as folks in GF add their favorite item to the list. Notability is a way to reduce the number added, and make articles more noteworthy. You're right, though, there are several other schools on that list which should probably be removed. Onel5969 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

November GOCE drive comments

Hope you weren't too upset about your copyedit being critiqued; I get 'em too, and was surprised (since I'm a GOCE coordinator) at first. I don't know if you're aware of the serious quality issues we've had in recent months, which may have led to an excess of caution. We're all volunteers, doing this on a time-permitting basis (and since my basement is flooding at the moment I, for one, have been especially pressed for time), and do the best we can. I appreciate your help, and hope you'll continue. Happy Thanksgiving from fellow former New Yorker Miniapolis 01:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: - Hi! Well, to tell you the truth, some of the changes the other editor did were spot on, particularly in the opening paragraph where I simply dropped the ball on the tense (should be present). But other than that, there was only a single other edit which made the article stronger. The vast majority of the other editor's work was either inferior, or a null change (meaning it was simply a different interpretation, neither weaker or stronger). But, as you said, we're all volunteers here, and to have Bafflegab comment like that, after I've done some pretty strong (and extensive) copyediting work, I just don't need that negativity. I joined the group at the suggestion of my first mentor here on WP, Gareth Griffith-Jones, but that comment, was not only unwarranted, but incorrect. I've dropped out of the guild, and will suspend activity on c/e work for now. Will focus on other ways to help improve this community. Thanks for your kind words. Happy editing, and have an absolutely splendid Thanksgiving. Feel free to stay in touch. Onel5969 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a line or two to write that I concur with your reaction, Bil, and to add that serious editors such as you and I need all the encouragement possible. Too often, coming up against such poorly written English and disruptive activity, one wonders "Why am I bothering?"
All the best to you! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand somewhat how you feel; my first inkling that there was a problem was here, and I've learned from volunteer experience in other fields how important it is to maintain a balance between any-old-crap-is-good-enough and a diligence which results in having to do everything myself because no one else quite measures up. Hope you return eventually; you're a good copyeditor, and WP needs good copyeditors. Happy Thanksgiving and all the best, Miniapolis 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: - Thanks for your kind words. I guess it was disappointing coming from someone of Baffle Gab's stature. I'm one of those sick individuals that actually enjoys most copy editing (although some of those articles obviously written by someone whose first language is not English is a bit tough) tasks, so I might at some point start up again. This has simply soured me on it for the moment. And there is so much that needs to be done on the site, it's very easy to keep busy without c/e. Have a great Thanksgiving. Onel5969 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it may be time for a selective wikibreak. When I periodically get annoyed or offended here (and sometimes it seems like an asylum run by the inmates :-)), it helps to walk back into RL or—as you're doing—pick another part of the playground for a while. See you around and all the best, Miniapolis 15:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars revert

"prior version was better" is not a good reason/explanation for a total reversion (especially of an edit by an experienced -- or more experienced -- editor). That's just your personal opinion. My edit was a change to a generally preferred style of bulleted cast (and/or characters) list. Not only an improvement of style, but also of grammar. Instead of colons, it should be commas or dashes. Here's an example: Criminal Minds#Characters. Also, I changed "included" to "includes" (present tense for fictional story). --Musdan77 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: - Sorry, not my personal opinion. Your edit left formatting issues, punctuation issues, and grammar issues. I don't disagree with your intent, but the result left too many errors. Go back to the review, and you'll see what I mean, especially after the initial line in each cast listing. And while your edit was to a different style, there is flexibility among cast lists. And colons are acceptable in that usage, although either is okay with me, it was really the formatting issue I had a problem with (also your inclusion of the "who" in the one picture caption. I hope this is a better explanation for you. Take it easy.Onel5969 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes, your edit summary was your opinion. Whose else was it? What formatting, punctuation, grammar issues? I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you're going to act like you know more than me (even though I have more experience), you need to give a better explanation than that. As for the caption, that is the right way to write a caption. A caption is supposed describe the image (like the one above does), not just have a sentence about the subject. So, the subject is Anthony Daniels. If it's going to be a sentence, then it would need a period. If it's not going to have a period then it should be a sentence fragment. But, right now it's neither. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: - Really don't know what else to say to you. I pointed you directly to the errors your edit caused. If you can't see those errors, there's really no point in going further with a discussion. Have a great day.Onel5969 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Really? I think you need to learn more about how to interact with other editors, and how and when to revert properly. If you had "pointed me directly", I would have known what my so-called "errors" where. So, then you're implying that it's my fault that I "can't see" them. Give me a break. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: - Yes, really. Don't know how much more specific I can get than pointing you to the EXACT lines in which your edit caused formatting, punctuation and grammar issues. You come on to my page in an uncivil manner, and than continue to be escalate the lack of civility. Any further posts from you, with even the hint of incivility will be deleted. It is you who perhaps should learn how to interact with other editors. Have a good day. Onel5969 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

REversion of edits

re https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/British_Rail_Class_365

Why do you say it "isn't formatted correctly"?

JohnGrantNineTiles (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@JohnGrantNineTiles: - Hi! Take a look at the section as it currently exists here versus the section after you made your change. Do you see how your edit wasn't in the same format as the rest? Also, if you add to the list, you should really change the lead in, so that it reflects that there are five in the list. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to add it to the list, because it's not one of the "places along the Great Northern route". I was trying to be helpful, bringing the page up-to-date, and I admit I'm not well-versed in the more arcane aspects of Wikipedia because, basically, I have better ways to spend my time. I get the message that these days everything anyone outside the inner circle adds to Wikipedia will be reverted, so it will quickly become out-of-date, and I'll bear that in mind when researching stuff on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGrantNineTiles (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 21:06:44, 28 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Mfbergmann

Mfbergmann (talk · contribs)
- User:Mfbergmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I created a page that was taken down for copyright reasons. I would like to fix it and have it put up again, but it has been deleted. Can I get a previous version so that I can edit it to remove the problems and resubmit? Thanks.

Mfbergmann (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mfbergmann: - Hi! I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted pages, but I checked and you already put your message on the Teahouse, which is where you should be able to get some help. Sorry I couldn't do more.Onel5969 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ou have no right to edit me. These are all facts. Put them back or I will begin editing you and your pages.

Understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC Funkalishious (talk • contribs) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)