User talk:55378008a/Archive 49

Michele & I

 * @Chuntuk Thanks for joining me on my stalk page.
 * "We don't appear to have an article on glorification of violence controversy."


 * There was a section. You just removed the link to it, my friend.  You removed the link, and now you're saying you don't have the link to it.  (The original idea being we use that link as a placeholder until we find something better; I'm sure we could find something. The Columbine article had a section on violence in video games, for example.  I think Michael Moore did a movie about it, too.)  The fact you ignored the question on relevance implies you agree it is relevant.
 * "If we did,"


 * see above
 * "you might make a case for linking it to this article,"


 * I did. You reverted
 * "if you could find a reliable source that accuses her of doing so."


 * It's in the article. Thats why I quoted it in the edit summary.  Please let me know if you need me to quote it again.  If she's not a reliable enough source to be quoted in Wikipedia, why is it in the article.  Complain to them.
 * "Mr. Camarena appears to have been murdered before Ms Leonhart was in charge of the DEA, if you have a source which makes a connection between them (other than them having worked for the same agency) feel free to add it."


 * Thanks. Now I'm afraid I'll be disappeared before I get it to print.  You didn't have a source for lack of relevance but it didn't stop you.  Wait what Wikipedia policy is you need more of a connection.  You don't have a source for your whos in charge statement either.  Thats just conjecture.
 * "Giulio Regeni doesn't appear to have any connection to the DEA, or even the drugs business, why do you think he might be relevant?"


 * Partly because it's the exact same situation. Viktor Bout didn't have any links but they arrested him anyway.  Neither did Wayne Simmons (Imposter).  Or did he?  Other than some hearsay.[?][] (The external link is provided in case the red link spurs contribution and so you can tell me if you think the source mentioned in the external news article for the 'informant' claim is credible enough for you).  incidentally thats more unsourced speculation.
 * "For that matter, why should a film director be relevant to a former DEA chief?"


 * Please see above. "I wonder if you would consider filling me in on why someone might feel the glorification of violence controversy is not relevant to her statement to the effect killing children is working." My original question and the meat of the paragraph you responded to, except that you didn't.  I answered that question in [my][?] response, now I really do feel like I'm feeding the troll.  Why didn't you answer my original question about why you don't think they're relevant?  Youre responding to my question by asking me the same question.  Short answer: because they're both controversial for the same reason.  [Specifically, Mr. Tarantino (through his character) addresses the issue quite pithily and eloquently in the producers spiel at the end of Natural Born Killers (of which I found the Drug Zone scene also particularily notable) and yet we have real life disgraced Michele apparently advocating violence against children.]   You're asking why two things that are the same are relevant to each other.  Because thats the definition of 'relevant'?
 * "It's not for me to prove a negative, it's for you to prove - with a reliable source - why things are relevant. That's how WP:BLP works. Chuntuk (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)"


 * You didn't answer my question about how is her advocating killing children (or 'appearing to,' if you insist) not relevant to the dispute about exposing children to violence in film. Thats not how WP:CON works.  You skipped over the main issue and jumped right to Mr. Camarenas and Mr. Regeni with a claim they're not relevant.  If they're not relevant, why are they more important than the original issue?  Also sky is blue doesn't need a citation, neither is Wikipedia a PR venue for rehab of failed officials. With the kindest of regards and fervent hopes we can resolve this amicably.  And why is it for me to prove.  I thought I just had to reach consensus on building a reliable reference encyclopedia.  Incidentally it's not for me to prove a negative either.  Lastly, why are removing things on the basis of allegations you admit you can't prove.  Again, I will accept that something that needs to be in an article be excluded on the sole basis someone doesn't want it there, at least until approved by consensus.  However, if the reason is pure b******* I think this should at least be reflected in the liner notes.  Incidentally note the irony inherent in the foreshadowing.  I suppose either Michele never saw this movie or, much like what I recall of my primary education, came away with a very different take on it.

Obviously, I'm getting way out of my league here. I'll see about moving this to one of our talk pages? - 55378008a (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How about See also: Strength Thru Oi! ("...so easy to deny the album cover's glorification of violence and the sinister tone of its sleeve notes: A mass of boots, straights, and combat jackets...") - or are you still having trouble seeing how her statement killing children is working is glorificiation of violence. I admit, and I thank you for pointing out to me, Wikipedia generally does not seem to reflect much of a concern with glorification of violence. My bad. I don't know if you recollect, but such a thing could be quite shrill in the 80s (around the time I stopped reading readers digest)(and frequenting outhouses).

Maybe I can add here, the link to Mr T wasnt because I think him and Ms. Leo should get hitched, it was because that was the only reference to a controversy over glorification of violence I could think of at the top of my head. As an aside, memory loss is a major recurring theme on my planet. However now I suspect you are still legitimately unclear how advocating killing children is glorification of violence? How much other stuff have you removed because you don't understand it. I don't understand a lot of the stuff on biopharmacology. Are you sure you don't think that was a tactless edit of mine at all? Because I still think its hellaciously relevant. - 55378008a (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Heres a little better one: Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children Although the gun violence referenced in the Q article falls under the violence 'working' referenced in the Ms L article, does it not? I suppose you object that her organization did not engage in trafficking of human beings? (Incidentally thats more unsourced speculation, in fact I know of at least two renditions) She doesn't specify that violence against children she claims is working wasn't of an intimate nature, instead she extends a blanket endorsement of all forms of violence against children (and adults as well, by inference, unless I am misreading intent if not scienter into this). Might I inquire if you don't feel this is relelevant to claims she was found in no confidence because of prostitution?

"that he was involved in a drug deal gone bad, or that he was a foreign spy." []

- if you're wrong about that, you could be wrong about no relevance too. Although again, judging by the results of a brief search, there aren't any articles at all on Wikipedia concerning glorification of violence. How did you know that?

Or, how about Der nette Mann ("...embargoed due to purported "glorification of violence" in its lyrics, making it altogether illegal to sell the album in Germany. As of today, this decision ceased...") or glorification of violence controversy. I thought it would be more //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tact tactful just to use the article on Mr. Tarantino for now; you know, relating to the young people and all that. How difficult it must be to live amongst those Alpine crags. Plus, I have to be honest with you after that comment of hers, theres no way in my mind I can separate the two. I had assumed since the Congress found no confidence in her, most of the public felt the same way. Guess I was wrong.

Punctuation inside or outside quotation
Hi there, I noticed that you made some edits where you moved punctuation marks inside quotations. Perhaps you're not not aware of this, but we have a guideline in MOS:LQ: "If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside." So I did the following:, ,. Just a quibble of course. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @DVdm Ah, my bad. I wasn't.  Thanks for letting me know. I should have realized there was a reason all those people kept doing that.  Needless to say, I ought to be able to keep that in mind from now on.  Thanks again - 55378008a (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Fortunately it's a simple—and logical—rule. But it had me puzzled for a while too. Way back . - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the above
Thank you for your correctional information. I either felt at the time that I was doing the things you are objecting too correctly or it hadn't occurred to me and I had hoped if someones objections were strong enough they'd revert it, as I was on wikitime and too sick to get to it right away; it is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all, no? As an aside, not only do I not remember what I read, I don't remember much of anything. In any case, thank you for your comments. I will try to incorporate them into my editing as much as possible. 55378008a (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware there exists a strong and powerful sentiment that as much relevant material as possible be excluded in the interests of brevity and that this has a substantial lobby. I am also aware of Occams razor. As near as I can tell, the consensus was that Simple English Wikipedia be brought into existence exactly for this purpose. Please allow me to assure you that you will likely not see me editing anything at //simple.wikipedia.org any time in the near future. 55378008a (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Stasi into Zersetzung. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Could have sworn I attributed the source in the edit summary. Will you allow me the russian heckers did it defense, just this one time? Thanks for doing the attribution for me, by the way, unless I did it and it was oversighted (an issue I think I ran into in one of my first talk page posts for chemical castration; I think retroricks post ended up with some of my reverted material.  Specifically 'in a colum wise manor. tnx.'  Creepy, no? 55378008a (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)  In which case, thanks for doing it again.  I know the bit about 'please see that pages history for attribution' never occurred to me, you definitely have me cold on that one.  55378008a (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisting Vandalism Accusation (apparently prelude to subsequent deletion nomination)
Warning template removed after discussion. Hannibal Smith  ❯❯❯  20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for accusing me of making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, 'appearing to constitute vandalism' and threatening the loss of editing privileges. I added 3 links to the see also section and you've proposed the page for deletion, Do you feel I am not assuming good faith?  May I ask if you'd deign to elaborate any opinions the 'edits' were unconstructive?  Thanks for your invaluable assistance and attentions.  I also especially commend you on your deletionary zeal.  You sir, are a true artist. 55378008a (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (repaired indent - hope you don't mind) - Nope, thanks. 55378008a (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with 's removal of the added See also entries, as there seems to be no good reason to list them in the section—see wp:NOTSEEALSO. OTOH I fully disagree with the edit summary and the warning here on the talk page. The edit was ill-conceived perhaps, but not vandalism—see the edit summary "‎See also: Added some other tricks popular for assisting in denying a livelihood, health care, etc". User Hannibal Smith, please retract? Also, please note that your signature is very hard to read on some monitors—using white for the font might help. Thanks and cheers to all. Happy 2017! - DVdm (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy 2017 to you too. Ill try to look at that this time and get back to you. I meant to do it before, I just- no memory. Thanks for your patience too though. - 55378008a (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit seemed to me like a prank edit, because each of the added wikilinks related to death. With a cited source, and a different edit summary, it may have seemed like a good faith edit. In my mind, the edit summary made it seem even more like a prank edit, and it seemed pretty clear to me. As I explained in response to the user's identical question on my talk page, it's a templated response, nothing personal. Sure...after hearing the reasons, I don't believe it was in bad faith, and happy to remove the warning if it was just an ill-conceived edit. RE: Sig, I'll check the contrast.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Replacing that part with  already looks better, as you can see—hope you don't mind my experiment . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great. Nice work - 55378008a (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, how would one go about making unconstructive edits to an unconstructive page - 55378008a (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

== The war begins: wp:Twinkle Level 2 disruptive warning from Andyjsmith; claims doesn't like that I added a Haversack Ruse see also link to their Operation Ironside article; addmittedly arguably  questionable edit summary on my part but then they go on to do the same thing or worse with this revert; honestly I was not aware this war is ongoing although in hindsight I suppose it should be pretty obvious. Also I'm pretty sure the only difference is that they appear to have happened in different conflicts == Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Ironside. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''You're adding see also links that are questionable at best and not giving clear reasons in the edit summary. Please don't. '' Andyjsmith (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

@Andyjsmith My apologies, thank you for catching that. Obviously such a touchy subject is always going to run the risk of raising the heckles of vehement personal opinion. May I respectfully enquire as to the ways in which the reason given in the edit summary was not clear to you. Also would you consider elucidating a basis for your claims of disruption and how it was in any way more disruptive than your reversion. Thanks in advance for your response. - 55378008a (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to simplify this a little - oh - I copied this from the Manual of Style page on Wikipedia
Please see that page's history for attribution. (Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia)

"See also" section
Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using Columns-list or Div col if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:


 * Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
 * Ischemia – restriction in blood supply

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles like 1740 Batavia massacre and Mary, Queen of Scots include this section.

The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

Other internal links: Portal and Wikipedia books links are usually placed in this section.

Title: The most common title for this section is "See also". - 55378008a (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This material was copied from- oh, seriously?

Discussion
Incidentally, per WP:REDLINKS:"Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

This seems to be at odds with the see also redlinks policy on the WP:NOTSEEALSO page stated above, specifically "The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)" Given the WP:NOTSEEALSO policy and also the MOS:NOTSEEALSO Manual of Style seem to link, cite and thus depend on the WP:RED policy and that seems to encourage us to chase our dreams; I'll let the readership draw their own conclusions. - 55378008a (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

DVdm Proposed deletion of Contact agent


The article Contact agent has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is not a disambiguation page and it is entirely unsourced, original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DVdm (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Youre not assuming good faith. You dont see me accusing anyone of stalking me undoing everything I do for reasons as yet unexplained. - 55378008a (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

John "Hannibal" Smith on PMS wp:Twinkle Caution(?)
Hello, I'm John "Hannibal" Smith. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Premenstrual syndrome, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hannibal Smith  ❯❯❯  07:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I- I did that. Haven't heard from you.  Something along the lines of "I added two cites, how do you like them?" - 55378008a (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I was working on the cite when the edit was reverted. - 55378008a (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)