User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 15

Dispute resolution needed in Talk:Health care in the United States
The discussion regarding an issue on article neutrality is currently occurring in: Dispute resolution noticeboard.2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Waddington
Information was sourced from obituary in Daily Telegraph (UK) 02/12/2015 Leslie Waddington, art dealer - obituary Art dealer who promoted Modern and contemporary works and foiled a cunning forgery racket — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.49.152 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cited to obituary. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Hayes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI on User talk page removals
Just an FYI, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, there are only a couple of things that they can't remove, such as declined ublock requests. See WP:BLANKING. Monty 845  20:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Didn't realised he'd been blocked so thought it was the editor covering their tracks while continuing to vandalise. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Emmerdale template
Hi. Sorry you think that I disrupt Emmerdale teplate. That is not at all what I'm doing. Don't get me wrong, episode counts are great, but people also need to know when the episode was aired. So please do not cause anymore problems. If you have any questions, contact me on my talk page.79.138.132.8 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting that you are blocked now. I warned you that repeatedly reverting other editors and misusing the infobox fields would get you blocked. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
Hello, Escape Orbit. When a country bears the name of the royal family to express the view that it is its personal possession, when its ruler cumulates the executive, legislative and judiciary powers and when all aspects of life, in the public and private spheres, are governed by an all encompassing official ideology, what should we call its system of government? The sources I gave do not specifically use "internationally", but I could provide quotes from almost any country on earth. The term is (rightly) used in the article on North Korea: "The DPRK officially describes itself as a self-reliant socialist state and holds elections. Internationally, however, it is considered a totalitarian dictatorship." If you don't like "internationally", we could replace by "almost universally". Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of a problem with the description "totalitarian dictatorship", providing it is well sourced. We must recognise, however, that these are emotive terms and primarily a matter of opinion (whether a majority opinion or otherwise). The specific problem with "internationally considered" is it is too vague. Is that internationally by other nations, governments, people or organisations?  What of those nations, governments, people or organisations who don't think this? (There must be some.)  Is their consideration "international" too?
 * So I think it's better if we make clear that this is the view of critics and follow it up with sourced facts that might justify that opinion. What would be good is if there was some sort of authority saying this, rather that a journalist, so that the claim could be well attributable to a particular organisation that the reader may recognise.  Is there any? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but "critics" seems too restrictive to me. We should not give the impression that we are condoning the human rights abuses. As a compromise, I replaced the formulation with "is widely regarded". I hope that you will agree. Cheers. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is much worse. "is widely regarded" is a classic weasel phrase.  And the cites don't actually support that claim.  I don't think that saying "critics" is condoning anything.  It doesn't suggest that Wikipedia is taking any stance, either with or against the critics, and the critics can be the majority.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dictatorship is a form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. That Saudi Arabia fits both these definitions is beyond dispute. There is no need to be a critic of Saudi Arabia to recognise it. The Saudis themselves do not deny that the king wields absolute power and that the sharia rules all aspects of life in the private as in the public spheres. The phrase "is widely regarded" conveys the idea that Saudi Arabia is widely regarded as a dictatorship, like North Korea is. If you can find a source that describes Saudi Arabia as a democracy, please, let me know. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. These are your definitions and your decision that "Saudi Arabia fits both these definitions". That's Original Research.  If you want to say "everyone thinks that Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian dictatorship" then you need a source that says exactly that.  If you want to call it a totalitarian dictatorship then you need a source that says exactly that. You already have a source for the second of these statements.  Your problem is that you want to extrapolate it into being the first statement without anything further.
 * Please understand I'm not trying to have this description removed. I believe it to be a common enough mainstream view among good sources to be included.  It's just the choice of phrasing that's important. It is not a universal opinion, and as an opinion we should try to best attribute it.  The reader can then decide whose opinion to trust.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I get your point. You want to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible, and you are right. However, if we don't want to write that Saudi Arabia is internationally regarded as a dictatorship, neither should we write that "The DPRK officially describes itself as a self-reliant socialist state and holds elections.[11] Internationally, however, it is considered a totalitarian dictatorship." Therefore, with some chagrin, I will remove "internationally" from the article North Korea. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For explaining well on my talk page why you have made the changes on Lanzarote page and for proposing to include additional information on the page.

HardstyleGB (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 

A beer for you!

 * Just when I was getting a bit of a thirst. Thanks! -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Silva Entertainment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Morrison and Dev. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Snarky Puppy's notability
Hi, noticed you made this edit to Snarky Puppy. While I generally agree with your reasoning, I also noticed that the lead of the article doesn't state why the band is notable. Referring to their Grammy-winning album is perhaps a straightforward way to do so. I couldn't figure out a way to work it in at the moment, but if you do, please do add it. Might stop by the article later and give it another go. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Orange
Is that feckin' true? All this stems from one editor who has been pushing it on and off wiki for nearly a decade? Really, that's a bit scary, not being judgmental or personal but, well, like, unbelievable. Murry1975 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it all stems from the one guy, just that most of the sources produced by people usually lead back to him. It's perfectly ok for him (he's an active Wikipedian) to campaign for what he sees as a fun idea.  But Wikipedia should only be giving it a mention if/when it catches on.  I'm sceptical it has and we need sources that don't involve him. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia article
Hi. So, I gather that we do not use internal references (what you call links) for animal and plant life specific to various national geographies on Wikipedia? Or is the linking determined by some type of personal criteria that you may have for when it is appropriate versus when it is not? Some of these plants and animals I was not familiar with, so from my perspective it is much easier to click on a link than to have retype the entire word, which for many people would discourage them from further pursuit of that information. But then maybe you enjoy retyping... I don't see any instance or anywhere in Wikipedia that establishes a criteria or specifies that this action would constitute overlinking. Is this just a subjective opinion or gut feeling or do you actually have a reason? How do you determine which animal or plant should get an internal link in Wikipedia and which plant or animal should not? And my second primary question is are you going to fix the internal references that were previously done incompletely or erroneously in the paragraph that you reverted? Thirdly, it seems to me based on your personal criteria, that you should clean up the first 3 paragraphs of the article, since they are heavily overlinked (using similar criteria that you have established) relative to other sections of the article including the Geography section where I added the internal references. Granted several of the references may be too general to necessitate an internal reference (such as shrub), but it seems very arbitrary and subjective indeed to revert the entire edit...Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't know if you saw it, but I left comments on my Talk Page in response to your post on my Talk Page, since that is how we have been communicating... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Out of consideration to and to accommodate your concerns and objections to what you regarded as overlinking in this section is why I added the specificity to the links that I did... By adding some specific anecdotes that elucidate the uniqueness of the wildlife (which as you pointed out initially was probably not characterized by the generic wildlife (and their terms) that was for the most part initially referenced in the article) I wanted to highlight the potential unusualness without detailing all of the wildlife uniqueness that is endemic to an environment as different as the Arabian Peninsula... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pilates#Which_Content_will_be_taken_down_from_the_Pilates_Wiki_Page
Hi Escape_Orbit, Just answering your points:

No one owns Wikipedia's content, please know I am absolutely aware of this and in agreement with you. My purpose is not telling people what to write, but trying to leave some guidelines that could be helpful to those thinking on just doing an edit because THEY don't agree or because THEY want to manipulate the topic, in this case Pilates, posting things that actually are unrelated to what we do in Pilates. It takes a lot of time to keep an eye on this specific article, and if there were not because of people like me who has tried to clean the nonsense edits of many people year after year, we would have a highly absurd document in Wikipedia serving the purposes of companies and not really providing an insight of the art and workout Pilates is. Unfortunately I have been away for little less than a year and today I found this unfortunate edits.

I do not require (and I don't have the authority to require) anyone to have specific qualifications to edit the Pilates wiki page, but I expect that whatever is posted is related to the topic that occupies us, and not to other disciplines, or adding sections of what Pilates doesn't do according to one study. If we allow this then we should allow all references to all medical studies from all over the world in Pilates. They should create a specific wiki page for these studies, perhaps. These articles are perfect for medical publications but in Pilates can only harm and mislead those who visit the page searching for insights and facts on what we do in Pilates. It is telling the story, the views and the finding of people that are not in Pilates really, and what Pilates practitioners should or should not do or expect. It is outrageous.

Regarding Links: I rectified one of the links because the old one was permanently down and does not link to the legal document explaining the law suit from 2000 anymore. So I found a pdf of the document (court ruling) and replaced the link with it. However, your reversion has destroyed these fixes. Regarding PMA: no company or organisation should be allowed to piggy-back on information provided on the Pilates wiki page, to advertise their certification underhand, in the same article. There are so many organisations certifying and regulating their own beliefs in Pilates, that the advice given by one of the moderators 2 years ago seemed most sensible: "we should then try to keep edits clean of additional information linking some individuals or organisations that could create unrest to others, or telling what is going on in just one country, but try to be more neutral without leaning onto anyone's business or specific vision; in other words to remain un-biased". What PMA, or someone using PMA, tried to do back in 2013 (and again a few months ago, which I am trying to clean from the wiki page) in the same "Legal" section and other sections within the article, was precisely passing their Pilates beliefs underhand. Not just me, but other editors spotted this wrong-doing and reverted some edits back then. Someone shamelessly even went to the stretch of creating a section "Education" so they can advertise and link all their certification programs. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

A couple of years ago, the section "Precautions" was added to provide the reader with the reassurance that in Pilates we have protocols on safety that do not obey to medical sciences, but were developed by decades of practicing within Pilates itself. Every year we have people that with malice post on and on (and take down the source content that say otherwise, just because they can) the "dangers" and "failures" of Pilates, according to them and any scientific study saying so. The Pilates page is not a page for posting scientific research! This is vandalisation of the work previous editors have put in place to reference the work of Mr Pilates, his method through history, and the work current professional do around the world in the Pilates work out room or studio, not in a laboratory! If we were not to edit these excesses, we will end up with a Pilates Wikipedia page full of scientific studies telling you rubbish about Pilates. This is not possible, and it is not the purpose of the article. That is my point here: To stop people from regularly adding medical knowledge into our Pilates wiki page, that no Pilates teacher learns about and practice, because is not part of Pilates and what they do. If we accept this then the Pilates teachers will be renouncing to the knowledge and the responsibility entrusted to them, and the readers will be digesting which is not shared by Pilates practitioners and professionals. It would be as wrong as if we start posting Pilates knowledge, in cross-training pages and in medical and physiotherapy pages in Wikipedia, telling them that what they do is not really effective and that we have daily proof through the testimony of people working out in Pilates! Keeping freedom of speech and an open society in Wikipedia also comes with understanding where are the boundaries within which I can contribute responsibly to an article. Unfortunately, the same person that added the "Effectiveness" section took down at the same time the "Precautions", because it was not compatible with what they were trying to say. Now, that is manipulation and biased approach! I am trying to rectify these abuses and I need your cooperation and understanding.

Thanks!

CF

HELP
I am doing a project for school and need to make three corrections to a wikipedia page. I have already made my prezi for the topic of eyebrows. Would you allow me to edit this page on Monday from 12:50 until 1400 so I can present my project? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.90.13 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm so on! -- violet nese  23:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not until tomorrow! I think I'm Exhaustion, not that! --174.109.202.56 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Elmer Fudd
Yes that was right! -- violet nese  23:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Escape Orbit, could you please explain why our page is being deleted? and did you sign off (UTC) for us, if so, legend! However our page does need to stay for us to keep that view of you, thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaskFC (talk • contribs)

regarding Dynamo edit
Hello sir the reference that was posted in wiki about dynamo father earlier was controversial  but the one that i provided was more accurate  and was taken on a personal interview  with him. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshrind (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

further explanation
Hello orbit I know him more than the articles,  more than the interviews  they say they took  personally  from him. Because he is my step brother. Im from Pakistan  belonging to Baloch family  and his real father  is my own father. although he is my step  brother but my father  told us about him and his mother each and everything. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshrind (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

related to dynamo
well i wanted to make things clear because thousands  of people  read wiki for information. Didnt want them to read wrong infos. we are not talking to each  other due to our family matters with  my father  n his mother  if you know about it. but anyways thanks for your  help if you want to let those infos public then its in your own power to do so. I just wanted to help and I guess my help is not needed so I will let things as they are. Take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshrind (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of Your Edits
Hi Escape Orbit,

I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you deleted many references I made, leaving sentences and quotes without citations. This has occurred on pages such as "Girolamo Zanchi" and "Johannes Althusius." You also deleted some sentences I wrote without any justification. If you had followed the references I made to the cited texts, you would have found that the sources I cite verify the information they are attached to. Some of your other edits are reasonable and worthwhile, but I respectfully request that you stop systematically deleting the information I post. In doing so, I think you are doing a disservice to the wiki-community, in addition to wasting my time.

Thank you, Uncontroversialusername — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncontroversialusername (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wallace and Ladmo Show (reversion)
Hello. You reverted my addition of an official site to the 'External links' section of The Wallace and Ladmo Show. In addition to being "official", it is included on the related Bill Thompson (television host) article. Note also, that the site does not have advertisements. Readers interested in the article's subject will find the link informative. I have no involvement in either the website nor the subject, (but am a Phoenix native and follower of local culture). The website in question: WallaceWatchers.com

--Thank you for your attention; please reconsider your reversion of this addition that I believe to be helpful. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D0C4:DF9D:2B6A:49F5 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1983 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menudo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Erdington & the Moody Blues
Technically, Erdington was absorbed into the City of Birmingham in 1911, and I don't think the Moody Blues go back that far ! RGCorris (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But the article isn't talking about the City of Birmingham, it's talking about Erdington which was part of Warwickshire until 1974. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From 1911, Erdington was a part of the City of Birmingham, and ratepayers would have paid their taxes to Birmingham, not to Warwickshire; likewise the postal address would have been Erdington, Birmingham, not Erdington, Warwickshire from that date. By contrast, the nearby Sutton Coldfield was a part of Warwickshire until 1974, when it was also absorbed into the City of Birmingham. By your argument, other parts of Birmingham that were once in other counties and absorbed in 1911, such as Handsworth (formerly Staffordshire) or Yardley (formerly Worcestershire) would have retained their former county addresses until 1974, and that was not the case. RGCorris (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an argument, I'm just going by what was originally there and what other parts of Wikipedia say. In practice, probably both addresses were practised and recognised.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit
Hey there Escape! Was just trying to add the USPTO Patent links for Beauchamp/Rick & Kauffman on a few sections - I might have just un-done your addition, sign on and take a look - make sure it's still there! If I messed yours up, just send me a virtual slap on back of head ;)

Cheers! Guitar player yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarhistory (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

諶/谌
諶/諶 is usually pronounced as chén but it is pronounced as shèn if and only if used as a surname. The surname has thousands of years of history. http://www.zdic.net/z/24/js/8C0C.htm https://www.zhihu.com/question/20263532 The mispronunciation has been quite a disturbance to people of surname 諶 including 諶龍 when he was growing up. And then 諶龍's badmintom coach, like most people, didn't know that and registered his name as chen. He got so tired with correcting other people so he didn't want to deal with it anymore. Slovebz (Talk) 201608200301 (UTC)

Tennis playing styles
Dear whom it may concern,

Recently, I have been writing playing styles for tennis players such as Roberto Bautista Agut, Marin Cilic and David Goffin. Then they've been removed because they didn't cite a source. I don't know if you're aware of this but many playing styles of tennis players don't cite a source. May I kindly suggest that you reinstate them in their respective pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.1.147 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. But just because some articles have unsourced original analysis is not a reason for allowing it on other articles.  Feel free to re-add what I removed if you  can cite it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Information
Just wanted to say thank you for explaining rather than just deleting my input. I will one day get my head around this and sail wonderfully into the Wikipedia sunset 🌇 Jamiewazere (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher–Blair consensus
Hi Escape Orbit. Just wanted to inform you that the discussion at Talk:Thatcher–Blair consensus has just been closed. Given that you suggested nominating for Afd before anybody else, I think it would be best if you were the one who had it nominated. I was waiting for to comment, but he has been inactive for a few weeks now. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 22:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll give it a few more days, see if there is any movement towards the article becoming what it might possibly could be.  Otherwise I'll AFD it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith Moon-Zak Starkey Source Dispute
Hello, I have added a source as per your request, references 161 and 162 on the Keith Moon page. I have also emailed Zildjian requesting they change their incorrect info re: Starkey joining The Who in 1994 (correct date is 1996). That said...was there any effort to verify the Zildjian info that I twice insisted was wrong? I understand I should've sourced my claim, but did anyone check the original source for accuracy (i.e. find another source verifying there was even a Who tour in 1994)?

Recent additions to the Curse of the Billy Goat page
I understand your vigilance against promotional schemes, but don’t understand why the story of the Reverse the Curse charity or even the men consuming a goat are more relevant to the "Curse of the Billy Goat" page than the news items that I just listed and you promptly deleted. Is it the wording of the items? How is the fact that people are trying to raise awareness about the plight of goats in relation to the "Curse" any less meaningful than an organization that names itself after the curse or the gruesome instances of goats being savaged?

The deleted entries are more fitting in regard to reversing the curse, especially because they are about kindness/fondness for a goat. In contrast, previous unsuccessful attempts to reverse the curse involved a goat being eaten/butchered. Farm Sanctuary, which has cared for rescued goats and other farm animals for over 30 years, is partnering with The Chicago Diner, which is vegetarian and located near Wrigley field. Plus, the restaurant owners are long time Cubs season ticket owners as is Farm Sanctuary’s board chair. This IS relevant. The story about Murphy the goat was that he was disrespected, which caused the curse. Peanut the goat, who lives at Farm Sanctuary and whose picture hangs at The Chicago Diner, is respected. This seems more relevant than other items on the listed. Please do not delete entries arbitrarily.

Spiderink1 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevancy of an addition to an article are primarily determined by how they relate to the article subject. The question is not how the curse can be related to Farm Sanctuary, but how does Farm Sanctuary relate to the curse? What significance does Farm Statuary have to the reader's understanding of the curse? I would suggest the answer to this is; "almost none at all".  The only value to the article that this adds is merely to demonstrate, out of great many examples in the last couple of months, of the curse's continued recognition in popular media.   So it doesn't really matter how worthy a cause is, if the relevance to the subject is tenuous. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

commas
Hello,

I observe the rule of parallel construction whereby if some short introductory phrases are followed by a comma, all of them should be.

Thanks for your message.

Kgrad (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Legal Marijuana Now Party page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=754121365 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F754121365%7CLegal Marijuana Now Party%5D%5D Ask for help])

Kieth Moon changes on Flint Michigan incident
Hi Escape Orbit, This is my first Wikipedia Edit, so part of this is just a newbie, not knowing the entire process. The source is not a printed document. article, book, or any of those things. I was there. I was only 11 at the time, but my father was the general manager of that Holiday Inn. My father is still living, and we have discussed this matter at length. Aside from the changes I already made, the part about Keith destroying a piano and blowing up the toiled are both false. My father does not want his name, email, or link published anywhere because he doesn't want to deal with any negative feedback that might result from these changes. I would like to set history straight. I am going to all of the websites I find with the exaggerations. and trying to get them to update the information with the truth. How do I go about citing the source in a situation like this. I don't mind giving myself as a source, but would that be appropriate. The points I have discussed with my father are current as of the last 48 hours. He is 84, but still sharp as a tack. I look forward to hearing from you. Netbadger (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Best Regards, Douglas Barnhart

My citation were appropriate
Hi.

I believe my citation were appropriate and you removed them. It was in the section of stress management technics and I added reference to a website describing the stress management technic in question.

Please reconsider. Thank you for monitoring wikipedia though. I do appreciate your hard work to make this open encyclopedia a useful ressource! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.175.255.16 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Failure to thrive
'Alo and thanks for your edits to the chemical castration page, I hope I'm not troubling you. Many of them were commented placeholders and not visible in the article. I wonder if theres any chance you might consider relating what you feel the POV being flavored is, or was. I'm afraid to draw attention to this but I see you left some stuff. Thanks. Incidentally, if you have a lot of time on your hands you can glance over the talk page to see whats been happening in the past year and a half. Erm, happy new year. 55378008a (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for helping me with the editing process. I'm new to editing and do it on the side obviously, and I am learning as I go. The award is the Royal Reel Award at the Canadian International Film Festival for Pocket Full of Hope described further in the article. It is also part of the Awards and Nominations box. I do believe it's relevant. I am trying to learn how to upload photos on wikipedia and do them correctly. I am still trying to understand the process of how to cite a photo from a magazine? Or the subject's website? You've been helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngayoung (talk • contribs) 23:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fender Jazzmaster Notable Players
May I ask why you deleted Jesse Lacey and Takaakira Goto from the notable players section of the Fender Jazzmaster page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watarase17 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't. It was deleted by this edit here. I suspect that User:Mr Pyles didn't think either of these players were notable.  i.e. not particularly associated with Fender Jazzmaster, as stated in the editor note at the section head.  This section is not just about listing anyone who may play a Fender Jazzmaster (that would be a long and pretty pointless list). -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't say it any better... thanks for the explanation Escape Orbit. Mr Pyles (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what constitutes a "notable player" in terms of Wikipedia? I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to tread on any toes, if there is a rule of thumb I'm not aware of. However, to me notable is a synonym for "well-known." Both of these players are more than well known. Jesse Lacey's band has sold out Madison Square Garden, performed on Letterman/Conan/MTV/Kimmel, in addition to amassing a cult following. MONO is one of the most influential post-rock bands to ever exist. Both players use the Fender Jazzmaster as their primary song writing and live performance guitars. Takaakira Goto's Jazzmaster was just featured in a full 2 color page spread in Japan's Guitar Magazine. Furthermore, the Jazzmaster is an iconic guitar that has been in use for over five decades, and yet there are only 3 notable players. I might point out it is "notable players," not the "Jazzmaster Hall of Fame." Please explain why you have decided these players are not notable. Watarase17 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Watarase17
 * What you say about Takaakira Goto goes a long way to suggest he is a notable player. Can you cite the colour spread you talk about?  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

creating a page
Hello, Thank you so much for your feedback. I'd like to create a page for ThriveTypes on Wikipedia so this information is available internally. How do I do that? Thanks, Laureli — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaureliShimayo (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

ThriveTypes
Escape Orbit, What are good sources that are not my website? For example: https://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Spot-Leveraging-Talents-Leadership/dp/0996826173 The Sweet Spot book is also on this page: http://culturecounts.biz/what-we-offer/our-products/ https://www.meetmindful.com/laureli-shimayo/ But these all go back to me.

The 7 Talents of ThriveTypes refer back to Alice Bailey's 7 Rays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_rays particularly the Ray and Concept. Ray 1 Will is King/Queen Ray 2 Love-Wisdom is Server Ray 3 Adaptability or Active Intelligence is Warrior Ray 4 Beauty, Harmony, Harmony through Conflict is Artisan Ray 5 Concrete Knowledge or Science is Scholar Ray 6 Devotion or Abstract Idealism is Priest/ess Ray 7 Organization and Ritual or Ceremonial Organization is Sage

This work is alo related to the Michael Teachings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Michael_Teachings The 7 Talents are correlated with their 7 Roles: http://www.michaelteachings.com/roles_index.html

I have tons of references from my work, testimonials. It is a revived and modernized form of personality archetype, like Enneagram or Myers Briggs. I am willing to put lots of info on the page. It does not need to conenct back to my website.

What can I do to make this more available to the world? Your advice is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaureliShimayo (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Back off!
You need to back off addressing me in your aggressive and disrespectful tone! You keep preaching to me about assuming good faith or civility or whatever, when all you have done is basically attacked me in a disruptive manner and aggressive tone. What is your problem?? If you're gonna come at me which such words, how about check yourself and your attitude first. I don't know who you think you are to be lecturing me on manners, when yours is absolutely no better. If you have something legit to talk to me about then, then talk. But don't come preaching to me about civility or assuming good faith when all you are doing attacking me and disrespecting me. Fatality1 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(1972-1973; died 2017)
You're an idiot! All I did was make the entry uniform with other musicians who had died from that band. Get a life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePrimitive666 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not certain, but apprciate input
Just wanted to say that I am uncertain about your determination, but will review the guideline. I do appreciate your input and the ref error fix!

OneWrite (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Elito Circa page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764032607 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764032607%7CElito Circa%5D%5D Ask for help])

Josh Duggar's four children
He does indeed have two sons and two daughters with Anna Keller. See these links: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/anna-duggar-welcomes-fourth-child-josh-duggars-wife-gives-birth-2015197 and google.com/amp/people.com/babies/josh-duggar-welcomes-fourth-child-meredith/amp/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us RoseMilkTea (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan Green
I will NOT stop editing the Alan Green page. There are no facts that he had a feud with Ferguson. It is his word only. All the articles quoted are just his quotes. There is no evidence anywhere about this. Wikipedia needs to show facts not one persons opinion without a cross reference. Chirpy Red (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Alan Green
I dont know who you think you are? I am NOT adding unreferenced or poorly referenced content. You keep quoting interviews with Alan Green where he states he has had a long running feud with Sir Alex Ferguson. There is NO reference or evidence of this ANYWHERE. It is only Green's words. There are no quotes from Ferguson or indeed ANYONE about this feud, not ANYWHERE. My edits are not controversial, they are factual. Until anyone can come up with an independent view on this so called feud, or even better a word from Fergie himself, I will continue to keep Alan Green's page FACTUAL. Letting someone go about something that is not proven just to boost their ego is not what Wikipedia is about, and you my friend are the one who is in danger of being blocked from editing. My reference to Ferguson's autobiography is valid. He dealt with all the feuds and arguments he had experienced in football and Green does not get a mention. Chirpy Red (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a further cite where this feud is referenced, and not by Green. You took it back out and again added a suggestion that Green is lying, backed by nothing more than your claim that it's not mentioned in Ferguson's biography.  This proves nothing.  Ferguson not mentioning it (if indeed he doesn't) cannot be taken as proof that it didn't happen.  Millions of things have happened in Ferguson's lifetime and career.  Does he mention them all?  Does that therefore prove they didn't happen?
 * Put simply; you cannot cite the lack of something to verify anything in Wikipedia, and you cannot suggest that a person is making stuff up, and a liar, in a biography without excellent sources stating that. You offer no sources at all.
 * Fortunately we have good sources that tell us that it did happen, or at least people were of the opinion that it happened, including Green himself. For the purposes of Green's article, that is good enough. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Alan Green
I will not be blocked. You are incredibly thick. You cite where the feud is mentioned and it is by a journalist using nothing more than Green's quotes. THERE ARE NO QUOTES ON RECORD TO BACK UP GREENS CLAIM! YOU IDIOT!! Why can you not understand this? I have looked at other correspondence on your Talk page and it is clear that you are a provocative nerd who knows nothing and simply enjoys bullying people. Well Pal it won't work with me. I am now taking steps to report you, you are a troll and a WUM. I have never said that Green is lying, I am just pointing out the FACT that it is only his word and his word against NO ONE! No one else anywhere in football or at the BBC has ever mentioned on record this so called feud which only exists in Greens own imagination. I'll tell you something else sonny Jim, and I will quote this now; Ferguson had a major feud with the BBC and this is due to what he saw as lies told about his son in his position as a football agent. This was much publicised by MOTD and was always mentioned after Man Utd games that Fergie would not speak to the BBC. Well Green on more than one occasion intimated that it was his "feud" that stopped Fergie from talking to the BBC. THe man is a Walter Mitty and I'd like to know why you stick up for him!Chirpy Red (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Some sources that about a feud you claim is never mentioned by anyone except Green..
 * What is not clear is whether Ferguson will be willing to speak to Alan Green, the BBC Radio 5 Live presenter and commentator. The two men have a grudge dating back almost 20 years.
 * Their feud reportedly stems from Ferguson taking offence at Green's criticism of his team selection years ago, and was recently listed, a shade melodramatically, as one of the 10 most rancorous in sport
 * From Sir Alex Ferguson to a sheep dog, Alan Green has upset them all
 * managers like Sam Allardyce and Sir Alex Ferguson fly into a rage over the opinions of BBC Five Live's top commentator
 * Green fell out with Sir Alex Ferguson (an easy thing to do)
 * Sir Alex Ferguson also banned the BBC from Old Trafford because of comments he made in his autobiography

Alan Green
My word you are an even bigger idiot than I thought! Half of those links are DEAD and can you not see they are all just quotes from Alan Green and nobody else apart from reporters quoting Green himself. You clearly have no idea of journalism, cross referencing, English, or the truth! I am no longer going to correspond with you because I am just wasting my time with someone so unintelligent. Green has created an image that suits him and idiots like you. Chirpy Red (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Chirpy Red for 48 hours. Might be a "stale" block given it's been 36 hours since activity, but since he edits late nights British time, I wanted to stave off another round of "you're a complete idiot" this evening. Hopefully we can find reason before the block expires. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Boxing.
Boxing. This was not MY opinion on the matter, Critics may say that but that still makes them wrong. Especially with the rise in mix martial arts the UFC culture proves that this info is dated Tmoneyhistorylord (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

27 club
Newest member to add to your Wikipedia list, Aaron Hernandez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.14.41 (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

When.. how did you lose your way?
I'm writing this out of genuine concern for you.

For starters, Wikipedia needs editors like you. Those that are willing to donate their own time and effort into make Wikipedia a better place. You've made very many useful additions to the project, and for that, I can only offer my unconditional thanks. Thank you for that.

I.. I guess I just can't understand, or perhaps even comprehend, the mental change to go from a focus on the creation of content to a focus on rules lawyering and the removal of content from the project, as a primary purpose of your time here.

I mean, I get it, I really do - the guidelines exist because there needs to be a baseline for the creation of the encyclopedia. Without it, there'd be no basis for the validation and verification of content at all. But at some point, the mission of the encyclopedia stopped being more important than the accuracy of the content for you, right? Rules lawyering started being the fun part, instead of contributing to the addition of content as the public good being the fun part?

I can't understand otherwise why you are so determined to remove unsourced content without even making an effort to source or replace it. I think we can all agree that if we were to remove all unsourced content from the project, it would be diminished as a whole, as a value to society, right? As an example, if someone links to the presence of a sample in a song, and you know it's there, and you can hear it yourself, then removing that unsourced content, rather than, say, adding a "citation needed" tag or so on, devalues the usefulness of the encyclopedia in favour of conforming to the rules of that encyclopedia, right? Who is served at that point

I sincerely, honestly hope that at some point you can take a step back from your actions, and perhaps in the future ask yourself the simple question: "Am I benefitting society as a whole by removing this content? Am I better off tagging the need for it to be cited? Is the harm caused by the presence of this content so severe that others, those who might come here looking for knowledge, do not deserve to have that knowledge?"

Please, return to what you've done to make this place better for everyone. Please consider a focus again on adding to content, instead of a focus on taking away knowledge instead.

Thank you. Orenwolf (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your kind concern, but think it is you who are misguided as to the purposes of Wikipedia or the value of this input. I'm assuming that your concern stems from my removal of what you added to  Africa (Toto song).  I think I made it quite clear the problems with it.
 * An encyclopedia has to be sourced. Otherwise it is just a collection of questionable information collated by who knows who from who knows where.
 * It is not my responsibility to find sources for facts that others claim are true. I do attempt to find sources, if I think the information is of the importance or interest to merit it.  But otherwise, how do I know I'm not wasting my time searching for something that is nowhere other than in someone's head?  How do I know that it isn't such trivia that no-one has bothered to record it anywhere?
 * Just because you think you can hear a sample in a song isn't good enough. You, with all the best intentions in the world, can be mistaken.  Your expertise and knowledge is a totally unknown quantity and we should not be asking readers to accept something purely on the say so of some anonymous Wikipedia editor
 * Just because some contributor generated website thinks something is true is also not good enough. This is why we use reliable sources, so that some one single unknown, unqualified person's fanciful idea of a fact doesn't get taken over to Wikipedia as fact.
 * Inaccurate and false information damages Wikipedia's credibility. It gets quite enough flack from detractors who can't believe that it works, simply because anyone can add anything to it. Discovering inaccurate and unsourced information confirms their suspicions.   This is why verification is so terribly important.
 * Readers deserve to have accurate knowledge. Wikipedia should not be misleading them.


 * Please focus on adding content that can be verified as accurate, rather than your own observations which cannot.
 * Thanks -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. You are a "Wikipedia deletionist" and I wish, truly, honestly, and sincerely, that you would think about the implications of your actions before you continue to oppress culture and content. Every time you cut large swaths out of pages with content you feel is incorrectly or insufficiently sourced instead of slapping a "citation needed" on it, you are removing content that is *otherwise useful* but not quite correct. Instead of fostering that culture and content by drawing attention to the need for more information or details, you delete it, removing whatever utility it may have had simply to allow you to make the page confirm to a nebulous idea of notability and cultural norms. When you do this, you generally stifle new, emerging media, nonwhite and nonmale cultural norms that are less well-represented in "traditional" media and "traditional" sources, all because you can, rather than because you SHOULD.


 * Wikipedia is down 20,000 editors from its peak, I personally believe directly because of people like you. You can count me (and those I'd talk to) as a person you have *directly pushed away from editing Wikipedia*. Was that your goal? Less new blood, so you have less work to do? Less chance for media content by minorities or women musicians to be featured? Do you think, maybe, you could have put a banner on the pages you edit asking for better-sourced content than just becoming a deletionist because the level of effort *from you* is reduced that way?


 * prodominantlyPlease, I beg of you, as someone who believes that the mission of Wikipedia should be to expose the content and culture of all peoples, predominantly white, male, mainstream - *please* think twice before continuing your destructive, counterproductive assault on the wiki. Request citations, request better-sourced content, request help on pages - do not simply be a Wikipedia deletionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orenwolf (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you seem to think that "useful but not quite correct" is good enough for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for what anonymous contributors think might possibly be correct.  Aside from that, your passive-aggressive brandishing of "new, emerging media, nonwhite and nonmale cultural norms" in attempt to guilt-trip me doesn't impress and is kind of nauseous.  Please move on and better luck elsewhere.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you're more interested in attacking my motives, or credentials, rather than listening to *my message*, but at the same time, your insistance on focusing on the rules of Wikipedia, rather than the Spirit of what it should be is not surprising. You are correct in that I believe that content that is "likely correct" but needs better sourcing should be left within the encyclopedia. I am Hardly alone in this view, even if you'd rather believe it is my neophyte status on "your" encyclopedia.
 * The fact that 40% of wikipedia is in danger from deletionists like you only exacerbates the problem - you clearly would prefer *less* information, carefully curated, than to broaden horizons and take advantage of new culture as it emerges. I mentioned "new, emerging media" not to guilt trip you (though I am not surprised you made the focus yourself instead of *the point being discussed*), but because, as participation and diversity drops on Wikipedia you would rather remove links to sites noting new music remixes and samples (because they violate the letter of what is an appropriate source), rather than just remove the offensive source, and leave a "[citation needed]" on the note that there's a sample there.
 * That, in fact, may be the single greatest indication of your myopic view on the matter: I mean, you can *listen* to the sample, right? You can *hear* that the song was used, right? That's self-evident. Yet, instead of thinking "Well, clearly it's true that this song has been sampled, so while the source is not appropriate, the *fact* is, so I'll leave a tag instead" - but you don't think that way, and you don't realize that the vast majority of uncited content is urban, diverse, often emerging musicians and content.
 * I will once again try to get you to look past the white, male view and instead consider the broader implications of your policy - you are not trying to make a better encyclopedia, you are trying to make an encyclopedia that better confirms to the rules governing it. They are NOT THE SAME THING. Please, step back from worrying about what *my* credentials or right to speak to you is, or your personal privilege, or your view that the only content that *matters* is what you can fit in your rulebook, and ask yourself: "Is this information correct? Should I therefore leave the fact in the wikipedia and request citations, instead of simply deleting an otherwise true fact just because it is missing a reference"?
 * Because, let me tell you - if we went and removed every uncited line from every page, Wikipedia would be a very sparse, and nondiverse place indeed. Orenwolf (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)