User talk:Sundayclose/Archive September 2020 through December 2020

Aptronym edit

Hello. You seem to have reversed my edit for the Aptronym page, saying "Source says nothing about his name, aptronym or otherwise.", but the book I cited clearly does, and my citation links to the correct page on Google Books, did you make a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohus (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nohus: Sorry, I overlooked the second citation. I reverted my edit. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit.

Hello we talked about a month ago. You sent me directions for summiting a source that would change some of the info about Lisey's Story. I can't find those directions. Can you please resend them? Thank you! Deac7117 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by 70.53.110.58 (talk)

May I ask why? I reduced the word count, removed superfluous information, and corrected an error in the summarization of events. 70.53.110.58 (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Well? 70.53.110.58 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you've restored it, thank you. To be clear, was not hounding for such, just an explanation of what was wrong, but I'm pleased its fine. :) 70.53.110.58 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

All Apologies

Dear Sundayclose, I sincerely apologize. I did not intend to mock you. It's simply when you appeared on the 2020 Thai Protests, which I am attempting to help out with, I checked out who you were and saw the other person's comment about you being the God of Wiki. At that point, for the first time in years, I laughed so much I literally spit out my coffee on my laptop. Luckily, it didn't fritz. To show the other user who posted that wicked comment about you that I appreciate and value your edits on Wikipedia (which I did check out), I made you a new award. I am right now evaluating hundreds of pages every day, and I see you are also putting a lot of effort into Wikipedia. I tried to light up your day, just for a moment, and to perhaps show the ALL CAPS user that some people here appreciate you, and I clearly failed. Again, I am sorry. Johncdraper (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: No problem. But please have the file deleted. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: It's gone. Johncdraper (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Doady

They're adding the same unsourced editorializing and original research (plus straight up incorrect information) about cuties to Netflix and Criticism of Netflix as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Youtube

Apologies I misread your edit summary so my reply should be ignored, Either way it'd still be best to seek consensus on the talkpage, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: WP:V is policy. Please read WP:BRD. It is you who needs to get consensus to make an exception to policy. And I had already raised the issue on the talk page. So far no responses. Sundayclose (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Having read your edit summaries even after 8 hours sleep I still cannot make head and tail of them - The source provided is not a source for ALL 50 videos .... it's a source for that one subject ?, The dislikes part are all sourced via Youtube as they clearly state the likes/dislikes - Unless a song or trailer has gained notability for being dreadful then you're not going to find an independent source for them all. –Davey2010^Talk 10:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: "The source provided is not a source for ALL 50 videos": That's exactly my point. We know the dislikes for each video individually, but we don't know if there might be another video among the millions of videos that has more dislikes. It's impossible for Wikipedia editors to check the millions of YouTube videos for exceptions to the list when the article is edited. I have no difficulty believing that there might be one, 10, or even 100 videos out there that are more disliked than the fifty on the list. That means the selection of videos by Wikipedia editors is based on their own judgment, which is a violation of WP:V and WP:NOR.

Here's an analogy if it helps: If we had a million jars of beans, and someone looked at all of them and took their best guess as to the 50 with the most beans, and then counted the beans in each of those 50 jars, we would not be sure that those are the 50 highest unless the other millions of jars were counted. Now, if there was an automated way for the beans to be counted rapidly in each jar, we would know for sure. That would be the independent verification. But with the YouTube videos, no independent verification has been provided.

"you're not going to find an independent source for them all": Actually that might be possible. The article on most-viewed has been independently sourced in the past, but of course any such list is constantly changing. But if there's no independent verification then the list is terribly mislabeled because no one knows if the 50 on the list have the highest number of dislikes among the millions of videos. This article was up for deletion or redirect three times. I'm not opposed to keeping the list, but it needs to be retitled and described differently, with nothing about the "50 worst" unless independent verification is provided. Feel free to comment on the talk page where I started a discussion before I edited the page. Sundayclose (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Per Your Invitation

Probability. Read this article and a few books (I highly recommend "A Beautiful Question". When you have an appropriate knowledge base, we can discuss probability at length. No outcome in the the Universe has a probability of .99 unless the event is in the past unless you reverse entropy (I also recommend the movie "Tenet".) -- Sleyece (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have the knowledge base; I've taught probability at the grad school level. The question is whether you have the knowledge base. But credentials mean nothing on Wikipedia. I prefer not wasting my time in a pissing contest because neither of us can prove our expertise here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Give me one example of an outcome with a probability that collapses to one. Do you even have one objective example? -- Sleyece (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This is how that would play out. I would give you a response (one that anyone with one probability course under their belt could find with Google). You'll tell me I'm wrong or I don't know what I'm talking about or my assumptions are incorrect or an endless number of other useless arguments. At that point my choice is to try to continue arguing with you, or spend my time on more important matters with more important people. The pissing contest always ends with both people thinking they've "won". I don't have the need to always feel that I'm better than others that you do, which is why you'll come back here with what you consider a pithy retort, as excited as a little girl with a sparkly dress at the possibility that you have made me feel bad . . . because you have nothing better to do. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So, it seems I win. I have many things better to do than this. I'm currently contracted on an important coding project that I'm doing in between winning this argument, but I can multitask. For the record, I would look incredible in a sparkly dress. If I ever have a daughter, I'll rock that tea party. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That was such an easy prediction. I'm almost embarrassed. But not quite. Sundayclose (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Fatima Secrets

So you think I have made an “unsource [sic] insinuation that the secret was a prediction of the future”?

How about the words of the “secret” themselves?

“The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out.”

If that is not a prediction of the future, what is?

I was merely pointing out that the “secret” was not all that earthshaking. Wars do end, eventually, and sadly, a worse one often follows. Also, the “secret” was not published until 1941, when, by any calculation, the Second World War was already in progress. Finally, there is no way anyone can know the regnal name of the next pope.

Hansel von Schnitzel (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hansel von Schnitzel: Thanks for raising this issue on my talk page. For starters you need a reliable source that the events you describe unequivocally relate to the secrets. For example, a source must state something similar to: "The regnal name of Pope Pius XI was stated in a secret five years before his papacy began, thus validating that secret" or "The end of World War I in 1918 validates part of the second secret that the war would end." But you won't find that in an independent reliable source such as the New York Times because such sources would not stake their reputation on such a bold claim. You might find such a statement in a religious publication, but that would not be considered a reliable source. Confirming that someone accurately predicts the future (completely or just partially) based on spiritual beliefs is generally impossible. It's like trying to prove the existence of God based on what is perceived as a miracle; spiritual beliefs cannot be proven. If we were in a drought and I prayed for rain and it rained, that would not prove anything. Likewise, if it didn't rain that wouldn't prove anything. I'm not denouncing spiritual beliefs, just stating the limitations of proving them. Your assumption that the events relate to the secrets is original research based on your own conclusions; similarly, if you assumed that the events did not relate to the secrets, that would be original research. Wikipedia is neutral about such matters. If the connection between the secret and the event (such as "whose regnal name was not known in 1917") is not unequivocally stated in a reliable source, then the voice of Wikipedia cannot imply or even hint that there is a connection. I'm not saying the events are unrelated to the secrets, but what you or I think about it is irrelevant. If there is no source connecting the events to the secrets (and there isn't a reliable source that is not biased by spiritual beliefs), there is no need for the events to be described. The regnal name was not known in 1917; WWI ended and WWII began; is there anything besides your opinion that makes that relevant? Many religious figures have made predictions about the future; in hindsight lots of people have argued that this or that event confirmed the prediction. For example, read Prophecy of the Popes. How much of what supposedly came true was in fact proven to relate to the prophecy; none of it has been proven. How much was coincidence, and how much was people bending the events to their own beliefs? If this was a website devoted to religious matters, your edits may be appropriate, but it is an encyclopedia. In any event, someone has challenged your edit, so you need consensus to restore it. Feel free to raise this issue at WT:WikiProject Catholicism or another related Wikipedia project. If you do I'd appreciate a notification because I'd like to read any responses. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the “secrets” allegedly were revealed in 1917, a year in which the bloodiest war in history (up to that time) raging, and refer to Russia, which was undergoing a revolution, perhaps you can identify credible authority or perception for your suggestion that the secrets may have been referring to something else.Hansel von Schnitzel (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hansel von Schnitzel: That's not how Wikipedia works, or any reputable encyclopedia for that matter. It is the responsibility of someone adding content to find reliable sources. And even if I found a source that suggested something else, it would have no value on Wikipedia because we still end up with the same impasse: predictions based on spiritual matters can never be proven, regardless of whether they are true or not. Again, feel free to seek other opinions at WT:WikiProject Catholicism. Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

So who appointed you Wikipedia Czar?Hansel von Schnitzel (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hansel von Schnitzel: I suggest that you be careful with your tone. If you wish to discuss policies or article content, I welcome it. But keep your ad hominem attacks off of this talk page. If you want to participate on Wikipedia, such comments will not win you any support and, if continued, can result in a loss of editing privileges. Sundayclose (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Misnomer

OK with you revert. Sorry, for the inconvenience, I thought I was on the Talk page during this edition of what I thought to be only a suggestion for discussion. Pure distraction and confusion from my side. Sorry, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing Beatles stuff

Why did you delete my edits for Happiness Is A Warm Gun and Cry Baby Cry? I clearly left a source called the 50th anniversary book by Kevin Howlett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastypotato0932 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Also George clearly sings a 3rd harmony on I'll Be Back there is a E4 vocal on top of John and Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastypotato0932 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

When you learn to stop removing sourced information and adding unsourced information your edits might not be reverted. You've received multiple warnings and you're heading for a second block. And I'm not arguing about this. Sundayclose (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

Please don't call edits by other editors vandalism unless you have good reasons to do so: [1]. Clearly, this was not the case here, and you should apologize to User:Staszek Lem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Please see also the recent exchange on Staszek Lem's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Running PR for Medjugorje apparitions

The undoing of revisions can only be described as running PR for a controversial Marian apparition, both with respect to criticism and history. There have been significant developments this user would like others not to know or read. See .Sober-watchful-deliverer (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sober-watchful-deliverer: I am not "running PR". Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and you must learn them and follow them. It's understandable that as a newcomer you do not yet know all the policies, but please back off the false accusations. I have edited for five years and have many thousands of edits. You have edited for less than one month and have eight edits to articles. And finally, read WP:EW to avoid a block for policy violations. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect in saying that you are running PR. There are many good and worthy things to run PR for. However, it is Wikipedia policy to follow NPOV guidelines. You don't know my Wikipedia editing experience either. Perhaps I have more than you do. I edited often without signing in, but decided that was unwise to have my IP address available to all. I am very familiar with the rules. No need to presume that you know or understand my background. My edits have improved the Medjugorje page, but in removing my edits rather than relocating them to the sections you think they belong in, are you the one who is running afoul of the Wikipedia rules you cite in WP:EW?Sober-watchful-deliverer (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sober-watchful-deliverer: I have no idea what your edit experience is, but I can only go by your edits made with your username. I believe you edit in good faith, and I ask you to also assume good faith on my part; my only goal is to improve Wikipedia, and sometimes that requires challenging others' edits, not because they were done with malice but because they don't conform to the long-established procedures that have made this a better encyclopedia. Your edits suggest some gaps in your knowledge of policies and procedures here. I don't criticize or fault you for that, but some policies simply can't be violated and require a revert regardless of the good intentions on which they were made. WP:RS is one of those. Also please review WP:LEAD. At this point neither of us has violated 3RR, and I won't under any circumstances. The only reason I brought it up is I didn't want you to get a WP:BLOCK because you weren't aware of the policy. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You deleted the historically significant Pope Francis quote a second time, even though I placed it in another section per your request. Will you do so a third time?Sober-watchful-deliverer (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sober-watchful-deliverer: Ah you're right. I didn't look closely enough. I reverted my edit. Apologies. Sundayclose (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. I can see now we had a misunderstanding. All the best to you.Sober-watchful-deliverer (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Simon Wiesenthal

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Simon Wiesenthal. Your edit was disruptive and have been reverted.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E86:F400:217A:77FA:C6BD:F763 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello, I'm Emir of Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Cuties that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not personally attack me with your lies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Cuties. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Do not add your lies back in via reversion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have said that this was not a personal attack. It was a simple statement of fact that anyone can see by looking at your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not a fact, and what is this two editors claim about. I have only seen that from Tbhotch, unless you are counting yourself which is not really fair. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm counting myself. My opinion on Wikipedia is equal to anyone's opinion. I'm not arguing about this, so stay off this talk page regarding this matter, and that includes responding to my message. If you are tempted to do otherwise, please read WP:HARASS. Sundayclose (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination, because I do not feel it is worth the treatment I have received you. As you stated on Wikipedia anyone's opinion is equal so I feel this does not cross into WP:Harass yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact it is harassment to repeatedly message someone when they specifically tell you to stop. But if you need it in clearer terms, this is your final warning to stop messaging me about this matter, and that includes responding to this message. If you want to test the matter we can take it up at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Season 46

I've been giving links to the source of the October 10th show's ratings and you're making it seem like its not good enough. Why block me when i'm giving what's there? FYI, I created the SNL Season 46 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu30Top (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Blu30Top: In this edit you wrote "4.7/11". Tell me where in the source is "11"? Do you know what the "11" in your edit means? If you don't know, stop making edits you don't understand. If you know what it means, why did you put "11" in your edit when it's not in the source? FYI, it doesn't matter who created the article. No one, including you, owns an article.Creating an article does not bestow any special privilege to you that allows you to violate policies. You're a new editor. You've been editing about three months and have about 200 edits. So it's quite understandable that you don't have a good grasp of policies. But there are a couple of things that make a difference in whether a new editor improves Wikipedia or damages it. First, when you get a warning, click the blue links and read the policies. If you don't understand something, ask on the article's talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come along to help. Secondly, take it slowly until you get a better understanding of things. And if you make an edit that results in a warning, don't make the same edit again unless you fully understand why you got the warning. And finally, you must communicate with other editors, either on their talk page or on an article's talk page. This is the very first time you have even attempted to communicate despite getting multiple warnings. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Communicating is not an option; it's required. Sundayclose (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I was converting it to the nearest whole number because the 18-49 household rating was 2.2, converting it a whole number is 22, then using division: 22 divided by 2 is 11, therefore 11. Stop making edits you don't understand? nice comeback. Next time, put in the ratings number yourself instead letting others do your work for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu30Top (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WHERE exactly did you come up with that bizarre formula??? Did God privately speak to you with the formula? Do you have any idea what shares are? Sundayclose (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay then next time do the fucking work and put in the ratings in yourself and instead of letting other people who you claim to have no idea what they're doing do it. Also, take a fucking chill pill, dude. My god, it must be exhausting getting mad at people for trying to help and if you care about this so goddamn much, do it. It's not rocket science. Listen, you clearly don't want to and just want an excuse to get angry so here me out, I'll put in the rating but without the share ratings. Simply it will just be 4.7 cause that's the rating for the October 10th episode. After that, we won't have to talk to each other ever again. FYI, learn how to talk to people respectfully. Learn to communicate better. That's all. :)

@Blu30top: Here's a friendly suggestion. Be careful with your tone. You came very close to making a personal attack, which can get you blocked faster than making unsourced edits. Also, please sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). Sundayclose (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's a friendly suggestion, please communicate better cause it merely sounds like you're insulting me. If I did put in unsourced edits, my apologies but don't rudely criticize me, or anyone for that matter, as I'm just trying to help. I'm offering to just put in a 4.7 as the episode's rating and the not the share ratings, but I can't do that cause you're just gonna tell that's not right when there is a link to the source and you'll block me for just trying to put in a source. For now on, I'll just put in the ratings, no share ratings, on each episode.

@Blu30Top: If your edits are sourced properly, there won't be a problem. You made the edit twice with no source. Then you added information that was not in the source. This is very, very basic on Wikipedia. It's simple. Source everything, and don't put what's not in the source. I haven't been rude any more than you have been extraordinarily defensive. Let me suggest that you read my message above about being a new editor. If you really want to improve Wikipedia and stay around here, you'll follow that advice. New editors come and go. The ones who stay try to listen to experienced editors without flying off the handle because of friendly advice. The others realize they can't get away with doing things their way that violate policy. If you're in the second group, you might want to consider other places to spend your time. If you're in the first group, welcome to Wikipedia. Go to WP:CTW to learn more about editing; keep going back to that page; click other blue links on that page and continue to read every chance you get. Sundayclose (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If you had just placed in the ratings in yourself, we wouldn't be talking right now. Again, let me just put in the 4.7 ratings in and next time ill just put in the household ratings for future episodes. I don't understand why it's so hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu30Top (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Blu30Top: I don't think I can make this any simpler. If it's in a reliable source, it can be added to the article. I don't have any problem with the source. And again, please sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). Sundayclose (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread about you

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sundayclose_won't_stop_pinging_me_even_after_I've_told_him_to_stop_repeatedly.. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are my edits to Marilyn Monroe's page being reverted?

I attempted to change the wikibox photo for Marilyn Monroe and my edit keeps being reverted. Why is this happening? Can we work towards some sort of consensus?

@Wikipedianempire: Did you read my message on your talk page? You cannot unilaterally decide to change an infobox image, especially with bios of legendary people. You must get consensus on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and requires discussion for major changes that are based on personal preference. And stop edit warring; that can get you blocked very quickly, then you lose your editing privileges. Sundayclose (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a basic question but how would I go about gaining consensus for the change? I feel that my edit improves the page and would like to come to an agreement.

@Wikipedianempire: I left you a message. Regarding the Monroe image, the selection of the infobox image has been a matter of significant discussion. You would need to read the talk page and the archives for details. You can try to get consensus, but I can go ahead and tell you that you will get a lot of resistance. The image you are using is inferior both in terms of quality of the photography and its presentation of Monroe. But which image to use is not simply a matter of my preference or your preference. A lot of people watch and edit that article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:The image I selected is of comparable quality to the current image being used. The current wikibox image features Marilyn facing off to the side while the one I selected has her facing forwards, unobstructed. Both images are in color and accurately represent Monroe. What exactly is wrong with the image I picked?

@Wikipedianempire: The resolution of the image is poorer, resulting in less clarity. Otherwise it's a matter of opinion. And your opinion or my opinion don't carry any more weight than anyone's opinion. That's why you need consensus. My personal opinion is that the photographic quality is poorer, and she looks terrible in that photo. But you have to do a lot more than convince me. You need to get consensus at Talk:Marilyn Monroe. By the way, sign your talk page posts (not article edits) with four tildes (~~~~). Sundayclose (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Poltergeist

Hi.

I was just wondering why you reverted my edits to Poltergeist (1982 film). Like I explained in my edit summary, “Steve Freeling” is how the character is credited in the film.

Thanks. 50.238.161.114 (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Basics

As you are the editor who made the initial bold edit to remove longstanding, properly sourced content, and I am the one who reverted you, you are the one on whom WP:BRD places the onus of initiating discussion.

Unless you are the Director of the International Institute of Bacon Numbering, the fact that you personally think that Bacon numbers should only apply to credited roles is completely unimportant in the presence of a reliable source that supports the claim. (Also, though this is not a matter of Wikipedia policy, it is true that Kleitman appeared as an extra in GWH, so it's not like you getting on your high horse is making the world a better place.) Moreover, it's easy to dig up alternate RS; e.g., [2] is the first hit when I throw "Kleitman Good Will Hunting" into a search engine. --JBL (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be careful with the personalized comments. This is not about you or me. It's about article content. There is no reliable source provided that Kleitman is CREDITED IN THE CAST for a film. Claiming that he appears without evidence that he is credited is meaningless. I could claim that I appeared in all of Bacon's films, but unless I'm in the cast list I don't have a finite Bacon number. Sundayclose (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in repeating the same thing in three places. But thank you for starting the talk-page discussions. --JBL (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Firstly: I removed a dead reference because it was an entirely unnecessary reference.[3]

As I explained in my edit summary: "Remove unnecessary reference. I could fix it but it is not necessary and Make It Happen has the details already." I reiterate, the reference did not serve any useful purpose, I hope you will take a moment to consider removing it again on that basis alone. To explain further and in more detail I had already noticed that the same reference was dead in the article Make It Happen. I had seen the archive copy of the dead page, and the Rotten Tomatoes page is one of those low quality lazy articles that does just barely enough to avoid plagiarizing the Variety.com article that announced Winstead was cast in the film. Such casting announcements are essential to avoid speculation before a film is released (WP:CRYSTAL) but often redundant and unnecessary when the film has been release and the film itself serves as the clear evidence that she is in the film. I think removing the reference entirely is still the best action, but you could go to Make It Happen and copy the Variety.com reference and use that instead if you really want. I understand that you might disagree but I ask you to take the time to reconsider. After I had deleted the reference I did notice that you had fixed it, I updated the article Make It Happen with the live URL so thanks for that. I do still think the Rotten Tomatoes editorial reference is unnecessary, and there is no benefit in including it in the Mary Elizabeth Winstead article.

Secondly: You reverted all of my edits, not just that one edit!
The site ViewLondon.com is dead, both the review of Make it Happen and the review of Death Proof are dead. The review of Make it Happen is not available in the Web Archive, which is why I marked it with fix-attempted, but I was able to fix the ViewLondon review of Death Proof with a copy from the Web Archive. When you've had time to take another look and review the diffs I hope you would at the very least fix these dead links as a matter of WP:GOODFAITH and to improve the article.
I also removed the unnecessary English language tags in references. Understandably that might have been a distraction, but when I add big bulky archive links I try to balance it out by cleaning out unnecessary cruft. Take a penny, leave a penny. This is English language Wikipedia and there is no need to make English language links, only non-English language links need to be highlighted in this way.

I would ask that you reconsider and please restore all my edits. If you disagree I would ask that you at the very least reinstate my changes/fixes to both the ViewLondon.com references. There is no need to reply to me directly. Comment here or take action on the article itself. -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify further, I'm not making a generalization about Rotten Tomatoes (although I could), I'm talking about that specific article. They plainly admit they are repeating news already reported by Variety.com, they add no information of their own. It would be better to use the original report from Variety in the first place than using the downstream recycled version from Rotten Tomatoes. -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dedrick Owens

It has been confirmed by numerous news websites, you can simply look up the Kayla Rolland shooting and his name will come up on every article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.194.41 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, as always

Hi Sdc. Wanted to say thanks for your continued commitment to repelling disruptive editors – the user at All You Need Is Love being just the latest example. Surely I've said it before but if not: I try to limit the size of my watch list, so it's such a relief to see that when a serial nuisance turns up, you've tracked down all the offending edits and undone the changes. Fab. JG66 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Image Editor

The Image Editor just changed the photo for Chris Wallace without discussion to a screenshot from the Trump-Biden debate (a blatant copyright violation) [4]. They don't seem to have any intention of stopping this behavior. Given your recent follow-up on this [5], I think it might be time for an ANI case. I'd support a report if you want to create one. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

They did the same thing on Howie Hawkins: [6]. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking through their Commons upload history [7], it seems there are many more cases of this. I don't plan to go through them all. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

And again at 1964 United States presidential election: [8]. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 06:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And again at 1968 United States presidential election: [9]. It seems their copyright violations are just as extensive as their unilateral changing of images to satisfy personal aesthetic preferences. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 06:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again at 1860 United States presidential election [10] and at 2008 United States presidential election [11]. What do you think should be done about this? ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

They just changed the images for the FDR and Joe Biden article series without discussion: [12], [13]. I'm sick of giving them warnings for this. We're way past the point of WP:AGF. This is willful disruption. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I started an AN/I discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lisey's Story

Just wondering if you are able to get back to me on how to give the correct sources for Lisey's Story. We talked in September. I can't find the other convo we had on here so I'm starting a new one. The info on the page is incorrect and I have questions how to give my sources. Any help would be great! Thank you! Deac7117 (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• The part about Stephen King getting the idea for Lisey's Story after he got hit by the van is incorrect. The video used as the source never mentioned it was coming home after the accident. Deac7117 (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems like I'm hounding but I found the book that says Stephen King got the idea years after being hit by the van and would like some help understanding how to correctly add the sources and make a edit on the Lisey's Story Wikipedia page. The current info is incorrect. Any help would be great! Deac7117 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deac7117: Our previous discussion is at User talk:Sundayclose/Archive January 2020 through August 2020#Rewrite. Look at my suggestions there. But don't edit that page; it's an archive and should not be edited. Sundayclose (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay resp. Do you mean I shouldn't edit the Lisey's Story page? I have proof that some of the info is wrong. Deac7117 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deac7117: Sorry for the confusion. I meant you shouldn't edit my talk page archive. Sundayclose (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but for some reason I can not view our other convo with your suggestions. Deac7117 (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deac7117: If you click User talk:Sundayclose/Archive January 2020 through August 2020#Rewrite it should take you right to it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It takes me to the list of pages I can look at some are blue. If you click on them they take you to another page. Some are black and those won't take you anywhere. My old convo with you is black and I can access our previous convo nor your suggestion. I'm sorry for being such a pain. Deac7117 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Ronanld Reagan

Hi Sundayclose. Thank you for your note about the lack of a citation earlier today. I have used a citation from IMDb. Please let me know if it doesn't meet acceptable criteria. Thanks, Weeneilly

Franz Kafka Prize

Hi. Please give me a good reason why the page must be reverted? I don't see any problem with the inclusion of laureates' pictures and genres on the list. WeCareICare (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

False Accusation

Hi. Please stop accusing people of disruptive editing instead of responding to their complaints against your own behaviour on wikipedia. It's pedantic. I'd further like to add that the majority of people listed in the categories that you have accused me of disruptively editing do not have what you determine to be proper sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafarrer3 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lafarrer3: "Other crap exists" is not a legitimate reason to add more crap. The existence of unsourced information does not grant you a special privilege to add more unsourced information. Repeatedly adding unsourced information is disruptive editing. Now, if you have nothing based in policy to say in your defense, stay off of this talk page. And if you're tempted to continue leaving hostile messages here, I suggest reading WP:HARASS. I will not hesitate to take this to WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia a Reliable Source?

Hi - You removed some information that I had attempted to add to the Saturday Night Live 46th season page, which was based on information already included in the various Wikipedia entries for that TV show. Since it came from Wikipedia itself, I didn't cite any additional source. Is it customary to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source when information is simply transferred from a previous location to a new one? If so, I apologize, and please let me know the proper citation format.

Thank you, Arthur Browning (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Browning. Thanks for inquiring. There are several problems with the edit. To answer your question, no Wikipedia is not a reliable source; see WP:UGC. That's not to say that Wikipedia has no reliable information. If another article states something that is cited to a reliable source, that information is considered reliable, but it is sourced externally, not to Wikipedia. Another problem is that gathering information from various articles and putting it together is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is a type of original research. A possible solution in such a situation would be to place the citations from the other articles in the article you are editing. However, there is still a problem with your edit. The statement "a departure from the pattern established during the show's previous forty-five seasons" (bold added) would require a reliable source explicitly confirming that the pattern exists for all 45 of the seasons, which would require a source external to Wikipedia. Simply relying on your own observations of the 45 seasons again would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Sundayclose (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on DCMA subsection of Cuties article

Hi Sundayclose! Posting here to let you know that I've just added an RfC on the Cuties talk page regarding the above topic. You were the only commenter on the discussion section prior, and so I think you might want to post your views on the RfC. Thanks. Awoma (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How about this?

[14] starship.paint (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: As uncomfortable as it makes me to defend someone whom I generally dislike because of their battleground attitude toward talk pages, I can give Bus stop a little flexibility at an ANI discussion that is devoted to discussing their behavior. Sometimes it's difficult to draw the line between an attempt at self-defense and bludgeoning in such a situation. I tend to quickly skim Bus stop's comments there. Eventually that discussion will be closed and we'll be free of it. If it was an article talk page or a user's talk page, it would be an entirely different matter. I also would not hesitate to raise the issue of Bus stop's bludgeoning if it occurs in other discussions at ANI or talk page discussions that aren't included in the current TBAN. Sundayclose (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ping didn't work because it didn't go with a ~~~~. Now, I do understand your flexibility, and Bishonen's. The thing is, I'm not sure everyone else is as flexible as you, therefore I was trying to prevent a possible escalation of the situation. Seems like it did not work out, but I tried. Obviously Bus stop is struggling, so I was just trying to help. starship.paint (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New page - Polymateria

Hi,

My name is Sophie and I am very new to being a Wikipedia user - editing and writing articles. I am contacting you because I saw that you had made changes to the plastic pollution Wikipedia page. I was hoping I could get your help to create a new page for the company I work for, we are developing technology for biodegradable plastic solutions (not oxo-degradation) to help combat plastic pollution and fugitive plastics. As I am currently working at Polymateria, I am unable to create the company Wikipedia page and was hoping you could help me.

If you are happy to help me I can send you the text that I would like to have on the page, external sources included.

Again, as said I am very new to this side of Wikipedia so please do let me know if there is another way I should be trying to make these changes.

Thank you and hope to speak soon, Sophie SophieStromback (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SophieStromback: Thanks for contacting me. Wikipedia has policies about editing articles about an organization, product, or service with which the editor is involved due to conflict of interest. I strongly urge you to first read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:DISCLOSE. Then disclose your conflict of interest on your talk page. Alternatively you can disclose it on the talk page for any article that you intend to edit. I personally would disclose in both places. You are not forbidden from editing an article if you have a COI. But I advise first discussing on the talk page of any article you wish to edit, not just with me. That is the best way to avoid having your edits challenged because of COI. It's also a way for a wider group of editors interested in the article to discuss your ideas. Try those things first. If you need help with the technical details of editing, feel free to contact me. I'm not an expert on everything but I'll do what I can. I'm also posting a welcome template on your talk page that has useful links. Best wishes. Sundayclose (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thank you so much for your help earlier, very kind of you to provide me with ample information. I have now gone ahead and created an article in my sandbox (and also put it on my talk page). You don't perhaps have a moment to look at it? Would love your feedback if you have time! Have a lovely weekend! SophieStromback (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you see this?

This is probably the most creative response to a block I've ever seen; I'll give them that. It's an interesting characterization of their time here. I'd say "Crusader Against the Dreaded Rule of Consensus" = edit-warrior and "Champion of Free Media Use" = copyright violator. I have no clue what they're referring to with "Defender Of New Wikipedia Users Against the Admins". I looked back at their history and hardly see much discussion with other editors, let alone defense of anyone. By the way, they've remained active at Commons after their Wikipedia block: [15], so we should be on the lookout for possible future copyright violations there. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Longest prison sentences

I did 11 edits. You reverted all saying they were disruptive and poorly sourced? Excuse me?

I ordered entries by time in jail. Now you have people who have been inside for 47 years after others who've been for 45.

I deleted an entry that was repeated. Now there is a guy listed twice, once as released and another as still imprisoned.

I made the flag of Rudolf Hess consistent in all times he is listed. Now he has West Berlin in one entry and West Germany in others.

I added an entry with a published source.

I deleted redundant or outdated information.

I corrected an entry that was still counting the days in jail of a man other editor forgot is already released.

I made the Tony Wheat entry consistent with what is written in the linked source. The only thing that is disputable is his released status, though there are more reasons to think he is indeed released than not.

If you have a problem with the last one or any other in particular, revert that or those and justify it rather than all. You are the one being disruptive.--Menah the Great (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I also made two entries about people sentenced in the same trial share some of their boxes to make it consistent with the older entry on Fecteau and Downey. What's the point on having them separated when they even have the same source.--Menah the Great (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy

Hi Sundayclose, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

I don't know what I did wrong when it came to the Elle Fanning page and don't appreciate accusations of being a vandal and threatened with being blocked. I feel that I have done my best when providing accurate information. But I will respect your message concerning this misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.75.235 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hm. Well.

Hi Sundayclose, please keep it civil even when talking to sockpuppeteers. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Point taken; thanks. This sockmaster has frustrated lots of people, but I shouldn't have let it get to me to the point of incivility. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

I see from your recent contributions page that you've developed a habit of undoing what you like and carpet bombing the offending user's talk page with a warning. I also see from your user page that you edited Wikipedia for several years as an IP, which leads me to believe that the 10-year-old discussion you're currently referencing to make random changes which could potentially impact tens of thousands of other articles that cite Metacritic as a reference was in fact created by you. And reading that whole discussion, I fail to see a consensus in the first place. I additionally see you've developed a habit of telling people to "take this to the talk page" when they create an edit you don't agree with, but since you've made it perfectly clear that you have a completely arbitrary and convenient interpretation of several policies, I have a feeling that regardless of how many people oppose your edits, you'd find ways of subverting any changes you don't like regardless. I'm here to politely suggest that you desist from this kind of GAMING, WIKILAWYERING and TENDENTIOUS editing behaviour. I only began interacting with you 2 days ago, but I have to say I'm extremely disappointed this kind of behaviour is coming from a former RfA candidate. I suggest you self-revert all your recent edits. Hope to never come in contact with you again. Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: If you disagree with an edit on an article, the appropriate thing to do is discuss on the article's talk page rather than repeatedly revert. Please read WP:BRD. I'm not sure why you think I'm a "former RfA candidate". I have never sought to be an admin, nor do I ever plan to do so. Sundayclose (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BRD. Repeatedly undoing edits from users across multiple articles day after day and screaming at multiple users over incredibly minor changes is indicative of a user who is NOT REALLY HERE. I really don't know what you're here for, but it's clear you've developed an incredibly bad attitude since at least November 23. If you're feeling overwhelmed or somehow upset by your interactions with other users, I thoroughly suggest you take a self-imposed WikiBreak for at least a week. It genuinely seems to me like you need one. Hope you keep well, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Thanks for your concerns, but I'm fine. Sundayclose (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje Follow-up

Hello Sundayclose, the editor, Governor Sheng, on this page that you requested he translate and then have an expert Croatian translator come and check his work. There has been some movement in that direction and one paragraph has been translated. Please come and look it over and see if we need more checked. Please go here. [16] Thank you for your help on this. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Buddy Holly

i think not all singer songwriter are musician's in the true sense even though they are connected with that industry, because they are not always specific instrumentalist, but anyway thank you for letting me know, hope you have a very Merry Christmas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.142.179 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Some friendly advice on behaviour

I see you deleted my edit war warning. That's your right of course, but you seriously need to consider your editing. I've looked over your contribs page and it's almost nothing but reverts. If the reverts were constructive that might be understandable, but they're not, they're trivial - like this one, for example. Your deletion of the phrase "France saw..." at Immaculate Conception was not, of course, a reversion, but again it was trivial (as well as simply wrong). You should have gone to the article Talk page when I reverted you and demonstrated that this is indeed a matter of grammar, but you didn't, you simply embarked on an edit war, while mis-stating the rules on reverting in the process. Ask yourself: are you really here to improve the project? Achar Sva (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I don't need "friendly advice" from a hypocrite who accuses others of the very behavior that they are notoriously guilty of; an editor who has very little understanding of the content of articles that they edit or Wikipedia policies; an editor who often causes more damage to Wikipedia instead of improvement; an editor who whines to other editors like a child when they don't get their way (only to be told that their accusations are false); or an editor who arrogantly holds false beliefs about their understanding of basics of English grammar. So stop wasting my time and stay off of this talk page with any advice or irrational criticism, and that includes responding to this message. If you are tempted to ignore that demand, read WP:HARASS, because I assure you any such additional comments here will immediately result in a trip to WP:ANI. And a "friendly reminder" for you: Immaculate Conception will remain on my watchlist. Sundayclose (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that your comments here constitute a threat. And, unfortunately, I'm sure you don't care. I won't comment on your page again, but you need to take the advice of the other editor above and consider a wiki-break. Achar Sva (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Once again you display a remarkable misunderstanding of Wikipedia and the English language. Telling someone to stay off of one's talk page (and suggesting the consequences at WP:ANI) is not a "threat". You really should find a dictionary and look up the words "pedantic", "see", and "threat". I also suggest that you learn some of the basics of Catholicism, beginning with simple:Catholic Church and simple:Protestantism before tackling topics like simple:Immaculate Conception. Or perhaps you simply can't resist the impulse to leave the last word despite the consequences. Apparently you don't take it seriously when I tell you to stay off this talk page. So this is your final warning. One more message here and we go to WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And I Love Her

Instead of sending me snarky messages when you are very obviously INCORRECT in what you are re-editing, maybe you should just leave it alone.

I edited And I Love Her, because as a musicologist, reading what you keep reverting it to, made me wonder if I was wrong. But a simple listen to the record showed I was correct and the title is NOT said one time. A clarification, like I put in the page, is warranted. And you abusing your admin status by constantly editing things and making threats to people (Something I see has happened a few times) is a bit sad. You're an admin on Wikipedia. Don't over think your status in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.97.131 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But I'll correct your false assumption. Administrators do not have any special status. They have to follow the same rules as everyone else. As for your edit, it's unnecessary. Get consensus on the article talk page. By the way, your claim to be a musicologist is irrelevant, even if it's true. I could claim to be Paul McCartney, but that doesn't make it true. Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)