User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 16

Nbrophy00
'Hi, Escape Orbit. Haha, I understand your assumption that the Nick Brophy page is autobiographical since I am editing under the username Nbrophy00. This ,however, is incorrect. My name is Tracy Holliday and I create, edit and add credits as they occur. I have had this issue before and feel it's probably time to abandon that username in exchange for one that doesn't cause unnecessary concern. Thank you.Nbrophy00 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Esperanto
'Hi, In response to your last message : the first reference was meant to add a note about how to interpret 'constructed'(ref to be put after the word constructed) -> Some people think that, as it is a constructed language, Esperanto must be somehow “worse” than languages like English or Spanish or German. This is not the case; Esperanto is a fully developed language. Although it started as a theoretical construct, it has had an active community of users ever since its creation, and the language naturally absorbed new words and new ways to express things as people were using it, just like a natural language would. Source : Source : Bill Chapman,   Over A Hundred Years of Esperanto In Chiswick   june 2, 2017 in the world. {{citation


 * The Prague manifesto itself refers to language rights and linguistic diversity, so I agree with you not to add a reference here. Instead I added it to the article on the Manifesto itself. Cheers, Alifono (did not see link to make my signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alifono (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Your Health Journeys question...
Hi, Escape Orbit (Not sure if I'm supposed to answer your question on your Talk page or my Talk page, so I'm putting it in both places)...

A number of people with knowledge of Health Journeys, the company, would like to see a Wikipedia page created for the company and have, over the last few years, asked me a few times to create a Wikipedia entry for Health Journeys. Most of these folks are 60-years-old and older and have a very difficult time understanding how to publish on Wikipedia. I asked a few of these people to email me their material about the company and am now working to assemble a page that describes the company in a way that complies with Wikipedia's rules and conventions and does not feel like an "advertisement" for Health Journeys or its products. Do you have any substantive issues or problems with the description that I have created so far? Any help or advice you can offer is appreciated.

These three companies are similar to Health Journeys and I am using their pages as general guides for formatting the Health Journeys page. I figure that if these three Wikipedia pages are acceptable then we should be able to create an acceptable page for Health Journeys without too much trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headspace_(guided_meditation_platform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounds_True

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_House

Naparstek (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Escape Orbit:

I see that you added this tag to the Belleruth Naparstek page.

I wanted to respond to your concern about Conflict of Interest on the Belleruth Naparstek page. What I can tell you is that I didn't author very much of that Wikipedia entry. I was given most of this copy from a couple of individuals who do not understand how to publish on Wikipedia but are knowledgeable about Belleruth Naparstek's body of work and are interested in the creation of a Wikipedia page for her. I put the copy together and did the work of publishing the entry. I did some clean-up and some editing but, essentially, did not write the copy for this Wikipedia entry. Additionally, to avoid Conflict of Interest, I tried to make sure to provide detailed and extensive citations. To create this Wikipedia entry, I looked at the entries of Belleruth Naparstek's peers to try to match formatting and style as much as possible. I figure that, if these Wikipedia entries are acceptable, then the one that was created for Belleruth Naparstek is also probably OK...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Salzberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Kabat-Zinn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kornfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Brach

If you have any advice for how to make the page better or substantive issues or problems with what is published here, please let me know.

Naparstek (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Orbit:

I noticed this edit and comment of yours...

Revision as of 14:41, 4 July 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) (→‎Books by Belleruth Naparstek: removed ELs from article body. Wikipedia is not a sales front for Google)

I linked to Google for two reasons:

1. Google *doesn't* sell books. Or if it does, I don't know about it. If the goal were to use Wikipedia as a sales front, there are clearly better sites to link to -- Amazon, B&N, the author's own sales page on her own site...

2. I believe I copied this Google Books formatting from another author page on Wikipedia.

Anyway... Is there a correct way to link out of Wikipedia to an author's book without it being sales-oriented? If you can point me to information about that, I'd appreciate it.

Naparstek (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Response on Naparstek's talk page-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Orbit. I've been doing a little bit of research on the issue of external linking to Google Books. As best I can tell, there was absolutely nothing at all wrong with the links I made to Google Books that you deleted. You can find more information on external linking to Google Books at the two pages below. There is quite a bit of documentation on Wikipedia for how to do this and, I believe, my links conformed with the guidelines spelled out here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Google_books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#WP:BOOKLINKS

Naparstek (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * These are guidelines for citing information within a book. What I removed from the article were not cites, but direct external links, which shouldn't appear in the middle of an article. You could put them in a cites.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Escape Orbit: It is exceedingly clear that you are nothing but a troll and do not add any actual value to Wikipedia and certainly not this specific page.

Hiding behind a pseudonym you have no business lecturing a non-anonymized user about "conflicts of interest." What are your interests? What is your knowledge and experience regarding guided imagery audio programs and the work that is discussed on this page? Why are you hassling me, wasting my time and deleting valuable and easily verifiable information from these pages?

I see that I am not the only one you harass and troll. There are lots of others. You might want to check in with yourself and ask why you are behaving in such a pointlessly destructive manner. I'm sure that you meant well when you started here. Whatever your goal is here on Wikipedia, your actions are clearly not productive to the community or the collection and sharing of knowledge. It's sad and weird and non-constructive. And it's destroying Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naparstek (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply on Naparstek's talk page. Explained need for sources that confirm what the article says, not publish original research, and address his conflict of interest. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Units of measure in Boka (waterfall)
Hi Orbit,

you have changed formatting of a number of units (deleted spaces between numbers and corresponging SI units). Please note that measurement units must be separated by space (see e.g. here: ). It took some time to correct everything... Ajgorhoe (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Sorry.  However, I see that Doremo has since added the preferred templates with conversions. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

James anker
Please add James anker from the dance group diversity to the 27 club page he died in a car crash recently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.100 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool James Ibold...
Thanks... The Living Blues Magazine references two different reviews by third party writers... One from the first album and the other from the third album. I can't make someone acknowledge this. Those Issues and page numbers are included.

I have articles from local Tristate magazines from 25 to 35 years ago... not online but on paper... How would I put them as a reference? There are gigs on video tape... but not online.

My problem with this is; I have made a statement that is supported by the Cincinnati Enquirer's third party writer of the particular article. It isn't enough for Wiki...

I could spend hour and hours putting web video together and then find it isn't proper enough for Wiki ether...

I spent hours already and it fell short... Ok

Anyway, Thank You, you sound like a real person.
 * I recommend you take this up with another editor. Wikipedia deletionists aren't likely to help you. Try Reference_desk for assistance with getting your references right, and good luck! Orenwolf (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

James Ibold
No, The Cincinnati Enquirer Interviewed Ibold... they stated Ibold was Joe Duskin's guitar player for over thirty years... and all references in that article thereafter simply put: The guitar player said...

So... like I said, I can't make someone acknowledge what they don't see...

I gave the Living Blues Reviews Issues numbers and page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiInReAs (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Funbox (theatre group)


A tag has been placed on Funbox (theatre group) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Funbox (theatre group) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Funbox (theatre group) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Funbox (theatre group) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Skills Development Scotland
Hi Escape Orbit, My name is Cammy, I work for Skills Development Scotland and I'm currently working on updating our Wikipedia page, When editing the page I could not somehow login to my original username ( CammySDS) therefore I created another user called (CammySDS1). This is the account that I would like to currently make edits on, but as you mentioned you have picked up that I have used 2 accounts to make edits on, I have requested that the account (CammySDS) to be deleted so I can continue updating our corporate wiki page. I hope this helps you understand. Regards, Cammy.

US China Area
The US has overall the larger area than China and hence should be place above it, and if include their disputed territories then the US is still has the larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Escape Orbit , Thank you for your valuable contributions to the numerous Wikipedia pages. Please refer to this Invitation to AfD and let us know your opinion for this article whether it should be "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view Comment  on the top page of Peace Treaty with North Korea, please click the link this article's entry for your valuable opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference link : Wikietiquette about AfD

Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson)
Jethro Tull broke up when Martin Barre left the band. Ian Anderson has toured as Ian Anderson since 2011. There is a setlist site here:

https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/jethro-tull-3d6b523.html

As you can see, the last setlist for Jethro Tull was July 31, 2011. Ian Anderson setlists begin after that:

https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/ian-anderson-1bd69578.html

Other references for you: https://www.songkick.com/artists/111953-jethro-tull

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/15/ian-anderson-end-of-jethro-tull Ian Anderson has called an end to Jethro Tull, announcing that from here on out he will record and tour exclusively under his own name. After half a century and almost two dozen albums, Anderson said he is ready for Jethro Tull to live on as "the vast body of [its] repertoire".

Ian Anderson has never stated that the band is reforming, only that there will be a 50th anniversary to celebrate the music of Jethro Tull. Stating that the band has reformed is misleading. They have not. The confusion stems from the fact that Ian uses "Jethro Tull" in naming his tours such as "Jethro Tull by Ian Anderson" or "The Best of Jethro Tull". He does this because of the name recognition and to help sell tickets. He is entitled to do this; after there would never have been a "Jethro Tull" without Ian Anderson. Unless Ian gets together with Martin Barre, there will not be a reformation. The current band is Ian Anderson's band, not Jethro Tull, and has been since 2012, though two of them, O'Hara and Goodier, did play in the last incarnation of Tull.

Personally, I do not think the issue is unclear. Neither do the people on the https://www.setlist.fm/ Website. They are sticklers for detail and accuracy. There has not been a Jethro Tull concert since July 31, 2011. All concerts since that date have been billed as Ian Anderson concerts, but as I mentioned, the confusion stems from the fact the Ian often uses "Jethro Tull" as part of his tour name. Also there is a Facebook group I belong to (https://www.facebook.com/groups/tullgroup/) and have come across some of the most knowledgeable Tull fans anywhere. Some even personally know Ian and/or Martin and they too will tell you that both Ian and Martin are now solo artists, each with their own band.--Hooter13 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion on the talk page, thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O1lI0 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my recent editing history shows nothing of the sort. Please actually look at edit histories before adding warnings.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Tony Blair
The article already stated that he was the youngest prime minister, and I thought it would be interesting to point out that he also was the first prime minister to have been born after Elizabeth II became Queen, which is certainly a testament to Her Majesty's longevity. I am sorry if that offends the Wikipedia censors, but they are a difficult lot to deal with.John Paul Parks (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a censor and not offended. My question what does this mean for Blair's notability?  Did it affect his life, career, actions or policies?  I'm thinking the answer to this would be; not even in the slightest, it's totally irrelevant.  So it really isn't a fact that needs to be in the lead of his article. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Cdonati ‎, you may be blocked from editing. O1lI0 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. O1lI0 (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The irony is delicious. This user harassing new editors for edits on their own namespace. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Cdonati. O1lI0 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can explain first, the result will be completely different, but you do not explain it first.So I think your behavior is harassing. After you add the explanation ,I can understand what you are doing.But I still think you are rude.
 * Finally thank you for your reminder.--O1lI0 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've explained everything I've done, both in the edit summaries and on your talk page. Your response was to delete discussion from your talk page and fill mine with templated warnings.  This is not helpful or friendly.  Please try to take more time over your edits and consider what you are doing before doing it.  Using editing tools such as Twinkle makes things faster, but does not excuse you from thinking before using, using accurate edit summaries or communicating in person when required. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Add images and logo to Wikipedia
I am with Morton Vardeman & Carlson, the agency of record for Small Town Big Deal, Inc. We have created a Wiki page for the Small Town Big Deal syndicated television show. We created Wiki pages for each of the hosts, Rodney Miller and Jann Carl, as well. Since July, we have been attempting to add photos that include the Small Town Big Deal trademarked logo (http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85724455&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch) and a photo of Jann Carl and Rodney Miller as well. Each time we attempt to add their photos or logo, someone removes them. I have read the info on Wiki around the requirements that are adhered to. Yet, there is no clear path to meeting the requirements.

Since there are other celebrities and syndicated TV shows on Wiki, there must be a path to approval. How is this being done? Is it necessary to retain an attorney that specializes in copyrights just to add a couple photos and logo? Is there an agency that I can employ that knows the secret to getting photos and a logo to Wiki?

I am truly at my wits end. Hope you can make some recommendations.

Bryan Nicoll Mvandc (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Antikythera mechanism
Escape Orbit, please bother to read the sources of the article before changing dates. The source being used for the date of the discovery is Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries by Brian Haughton. Pages 42-43 specifically state that the wreck was discovered on Easter Day, 1900 (in April), and that the mechanism was discovered by Greek archaeologist Spyridon Stais "on May 17, 1902". The source states nothing about 1901.

Later on the article states that the 115th anniversary of the discovery was celebrated on May 17, 2017. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See the article talk page. Dimadick is confusing different dates, probably because the article wasn't clear. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area
There ara other countries without internatonally recognise, for example TaiwanRollerman (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Louis Wolff edits
I do not understand your comment. "just say what he did, don't guess what he's best known for doing" I did not edit or add what he was best known for.

I added: Dr. Wolff graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard Medical School; and he was a past president of the New England Cardiovascular Society. He was a clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

and links to his paper at PubMed etc.

That is not a guess, I am quoting his NY Time Obit. and finding the link. Also whatever you did made me lose the links I was adding to John Parkinson and Paul Dudley White his co-authors. DavidBlackwell (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply on David's talk page. I wasn't talking to him, I was commenting my edit. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

VinegarBend, Alabama
I hate to be cranky; but, I grew up with a VinegarBend address. That's right "VinegarBend" is one word with two caps in it. I remember VinegarBend Mizell; he came to our house a time or two. And, no one living is 100% sure how the town got its name. You see, whether or not something can be traced to a published document isn't always a measure of correctness; for example I actually have photos of the bend in the GM&O Railroad's Escatawpa River bridge (no longer there) at VinegarBend, and a USGS map of the bend in the River too. So, Vinegar Hill (from the Jim Copeland confessions) could easily have been renamed to VinegarBend when the railroad came through in 1854. It's not actually documented; but it is the most plausible explanation I've heard yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.2.125 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what you are talking about. However, I'll explain this; it is true that whether or not something can be traced to a published document isn't always a measure of correctness, but it is a measure of whether it can be put on Wikipedia.   -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

History of botany
Thanks for your contribution. The answer to your question is by me - I added an explanation on the Talk page. You will see in the revision history of the page I have been working on getting it into this format for a long time, and I want to make sure that future revisions to the page respect this format to keep it at GA status.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I cited on Tony Blairs wikipedia page
I put a source down regarding Tony Blairs and Dennis Skinners relationship on Tony Blairs wikipedia page. It is the same one from Dennis Skinners wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamite16 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see where you have cited this on the Tony Blair article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change
 * : Escape Orbit  (Talk)

to
 * : Escape Orbit  (Talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I wasn't aware of the issue.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thank you for taking care of it! (It's usually best to keep a conversation on one talk page.) —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

27 Club
Hello, This is MinjiDorothy, I'm not sure if this is how you message people. I believe you messed up on the 27 Club Wiki Page. Kim Jonghyun should be considered a member since his international age is 27, however, his Korean Age is 28, because Korean Age is unique to their culture. If this is not how you're supposed to message people then I apologize, but I had to explain why Kim Jonghyun of SHINee is a member of the 27 Club.
 * His age was only part of why I removed him. The article is specifically about the 27 Club.  That means people who have been identified as being in "the club".  It is not simply a list of all people who have died while aged 27.  The cite used did not mention "the club", and so the decision to make him a member of the club is not one that Wikipedia should be making.  However, I see since then that a cite that does do this has been added.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Another member to be added to the "27 Club" sadly is; Soledad Rendón Bueno (9 July 1943 – 18 August 1970), better known by her stage names Soledad Miranda, a Spanish actress and singer who was tragically killed in 1970 at the age of 27 in Portugal from a fatal car crash. She was overlooked. My name is Swardzy70, my user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.194.155 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Photograph error
A verified link to the origin of Missy Elliott snapped at the 2010 UK Festival by way of Getty Images. I do not know why the error made such a massive error on the origin of the photograph. Other snaps from the concert are featured on the photographer's reel as well for further review. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/wireless-festival-2010-hyde-park-london-britain-jul-2010-news-photo/567230595#wireless-festival-2010-hyde-park-london-britain-jul-2010-missy-picture-id567230595 ChocoLantern88 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

remove link
Hello Escape Orbit Hope you will be fine.. i have added a link 200 kilts company listed their. to help people to see for their best you have removed the link. i want to know about what is inappropriate in it.. so please sir help people to give more information relevant scotland you can see all companies https://kiltguide.com/directory/kilts-for-men — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhsanSial (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhsanSial (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a directory. That means it's not a directory of kilts, and it's not a directory of websites about kilts. So the Kilt article is there to explain kilts to people, not give them a list of different kilts or a list of where they can buy them.   If you believe that the website has content that is relevant to the article, then please add it to the article, rather than directing people to an external commercial website.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Frank Dux
Do you have any issues with adding Dux's dob as April 6, 1956. It was removed by editors claim he was unreliable, yet his claims of Ninjutsu and Senzo Tanaka are far more unreliable. Valoem talk contrib 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Jim Humble on the "Quakery" article
If you think there is to little support to list Humbles "discovery" of MMS as a first-class quakery, than simply look at the Wikipedia article of MMS itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement). I also added a new reference (article in The Gardian) and a link to Humbles own webpage. On his own webpage he states the he personally "discovered" the therapeutic power of MMS in 1996. The FDA has issued warnings and the US DoJ sentenced MMS sellers to prison (https://www.fda.gov/iceci/criminalinvestigations/ucm469831.htm) What else do you need as a proof of his quakery ? Do you wait until Jim Humble himself confesses in a written statement that he was lying and making up his records ?

Jim Humble on Quackery

 * Hello, Thanks for considering this issue.  Considering that you have been very quick to delete my text always within seconds, I find it strange that you did not had time since >12 h to reply to the additional information that I presented to you. I very well understand that it is perhaps difficult to objectively tell if something is quackery or simply an non-traditional way of treatment. For the inherent consistence of WIkipedia, however, I'd like you to refer to the single WP entry on Miracle Mineral Supplement. Nothing that I added about Jim Humble to the quackery article is fundamentally different to the more extended description under WP Miracle Mineral Supplement. In the latter one a reference to then-Attorney General Lisa Madigan is made, describing a case of pseudo-medical MMS prescription by saying, "You have a situation where there are people, complete quacks, that are out there promoting a very dangerous chemical being given to young children... Ingesting what amounts to a toxic chemical - bleach - is not going to cure your child." Jim Humble is the "master mind" behind MMS, as one can read on his personal website and the website (http://genesis2church.is/our-church)where he claims to be archbishop of GENESIS II, a cult that praises MMS as its holy sacrament. All their claims read like a Monthy Python joke, but it is all meant to be taken serious. The claims by Humble are so hilarious, that I also completely agree that he does not deserve a personal WP article. But the entire MMS story is perhaps a prototype of modern days quackery. Thousands of desperate patients in the US and elsewhere are blindly following his claims.  (Rosemann talk) 13:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the problem. In Wikipedia, if you are adding information about a person, especially if it is critical, you need to provide verification.  That mean that you cannot construct an argument about someone's quackery, no matter how compelling and convincing.  You need to provide a reliable source that has already done this.  That means a source that specifically mentions the person, specifically discusses the alleged quackery and specifically accuses them of it.  And neither can you combine multiple sources that does each part of this to create your argument.


 * The cite you added may have discussed the quackery, but made no mention of the person. That's not good enough.
 * The cite you added may have discussed the quackery, but made no mention of the person. That's not good enough.


 * But if have a source, and a good, authoritative one, that does all the above then I have no problem with it being added. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know if 2 articles from The Guardian and one from The Independent are good,reliable,authoritative enough sources for you. And in case you still have problems finding John Humbles name there, I help you to identify the exact position in the text:


 * "Bleach-based cure-all online remedies could kill, warns government" (The Guardian, 04-07-2012), mentions John Humble (line 21) as "...The inventor and chief advocate of MMS is American scientist Jim Humble ..." (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jul/04/government-warning-internet-remedies)


 * "The man who encourages the sick and dying to drink industrial bleach" (The Guardian, 15-09-2010), mentions John Humble (line 26) as "...The inventor and chief advocate of MMS turns out to be one Jim Humble, a man who neatly contradicts the theory of nominative determinism pretty much every time he speaks. ..." (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/15/miracle-mineral-solutions-mms-bleach)


 * "Parents found using bleach to 'treat' children with autism" (The Independent, 10-11-2016), mentions John Humble (line 12) as "...The secretive Genesis II Church, [which promoted and pushed MMS] was founded by Jim Humble, a former scientologist, who has claimed in a video to be a "billion-year-old god from the Andromeda galaxy".. ..." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/autism-bleach-california-us-genesis-ii-church-mms-scientology-a7409186.html)


 * Seeing forward to read your next complaints.


 * These are good cites. Please use them.  I have no "next complaints".  Please try to not take requests that Wikipedia content be properly sourced so personally.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Dinky
Hi Escape Orbit Did you get my email - I do hope so - please confirm. Thank you Dinkyhugh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinkyhugh (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not receive emails. I communicate through talk pages. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Toto africa
Hello, you removed the addition of this material: * The song was featured in the first episode of the first season of Stranger Things.

I believe it is notable given the success of the series. Ral 33 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the success of the series has nothing to do with this song. It is brief, background music.  It plays no part of the plot and is not referenced by any of the characters. So there is no way to say that its use in the series is "notable". But what this article needs to focus on is the significance to the article subject, not the other way around.  What significance to the song has there been based on its appearance on the series?  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Entry for Tommy Pitera
Hi. I'd like to ask you about the entry for Tommy Pitera. In the introductory section, it says he's suspected by law enforcement of committing 1,200 murders. A few weeks ago, in the same section, someone put the figure as 2,000. Both cited a book by Phillip DeCarlo. Both numbers sound ridiculously high. Do you honestly believe a guy could murder, dismember and dispose of 1,200-2,000 people without getting caught? I wanted to correct this figure but I was unable to. All of the other sections make it possible for you to make edits by clicking the words "edit source" but not the introductory section. So I'm unable to correct that ridiculous figure. From what I've read, Pitera was believed to have killed 60 people--not 1,200-2,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odyswood (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

, you are correct. It does seem unlikely and the content can be traced back to an unexplained edit that didn't alter the source in the cite. So I have reverted it back to its previous figure. If the editor adding it thinks they are correct, they are welcome to provide a better cite that supports the new figure. But I think that's unlikely. Thank you for pointing this out. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burak Deniz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shameless ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Burak_Deniz check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Burak_Deniz?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Good work
Just to say thanks for your explanation of your revert at User talk:Mayarakash. I saw the revert on my watchlist and I thought I would just check that you had left a message about the need for sources on the user's talk page. I was going to add an explanation about the need to attribute opinions too, as people often neglect to explain that, but you already had it covered, so there was nothing for me to say. Good work. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

oxymoron
I made an edit which was a new sub-topic. It was reverted with a notation that it didn't have a reference, which it did not have. I made my case first by including the definition of oxymoron, and how the term applies to the specific sub-catagory

I welcome a discussion on this subject as I feel that using an oxymoron which, when not in an ironic mode, is a self contradiction which implies a common set of values. There is ongoing research on race and genetics defined in a long article in the N.Y. Times by David Reich, that would be placed in the Wikipedia article on "Scientific Racism" as irony; but it's not to Harvard and the N.Y.Times

Here was my addition, which was not based on a published article.

"Ideological-political oxymoron" The nature of political dialogue entails ideological groups attempting to craft linguistic connotations to sway public opinion. A non oxymoron example is "Pro Choice" which avoids reference to the act itself. An example of a political-ideological oxymoron is the term "Scientific Racism." Racism has come to mean an invidious predisposition against genetically related groups. It cannot reasonably be an adjective to modify "science" as the term negates the process, which entails adhering to the scientific method. This procedural requirement,while allowing hypotheses, unlike the meaning of "racism," must also include tentativeness based on ongoing research. As the term is rarely used by those doing research on the genetics or sociology of race, it becomes a partisan statement of ridicule for those engaged in this academic endeavor.

I believe that the pillar of NOR, "No Original Research" was not meant to apply when the distortion is integral to the subjects title. It is a corrective to this defect. The content of the article is not being globally criticized. It is the title deserves to be noted as being either ironic or factual, based on one's ideological perspective. And if ironic, it should be noted as such

Arodb (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , I understand your thinking, but there is no getting past the issue that, in the absence of a source, the idea of a "Ideological-political oxymoron" is entirely yours, and the examples you give are entirely yours. By any definition, this makes it entirely  original research.
 * Performing a quick Google, I can't find the term "Ideological-political oxymoron" anywhere. Perhaps it is also termed something else?  I urge you to find a source discussing the idea. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Arodb (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , The pillar of "No original research" should be now seen in the light of the information from this N.Y.Times article "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals" 10/30/2017  While articles in Nature or Science are vetted, an increasing collection of journals get paid by the author and have names that mimic those that are more legitimate.  Wikipedia's dependence on published articles for validation, which is the other side of "NOR," is thus less justifiable than ever.

Wikipedia can thrive when those who revere knowledge actively participate and there is a dialogue in shaping articles. The words, "Scientific Racism" are not a neutral introduction to a complex fraught issue, but is a point of view in itself when understood as an Oxymoron. A more accurate title would be "History of the Study of Race" Such a title would not have the tacit message of the existing one, "those who study race are biased"

I still contend that the existing title is by the definition in the Wikipedia article an Oxymoron, and that the "ideological political" genre of this is parallel to the "comical oxymoron" that currently exists

Arodb (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Contributing more Original Research to my talk page will not make the slightest difference to the problem. It's Original Research. You don't deny it's Original Research.  Wikipedia does not accept Original Research. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Get a life and stop threatening people who are trying to contribute but cocked up their citation as it's in another language. I will fix accordingly. (Talk) 21:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I look forward to you adding a cite that backs up what you added, and incorrectly cited, on three articles. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Promenade editing
The person keeps re adding information without a source.
 * So I've added a source. Your edits have a distinctly pointy flavour. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to "Antikythera Mechanism"
Hello, Escape Orbit. Myself and two others chose the "Antikythera Mechanism," page to edit for a school project. You contend that the reasons you removed a couple of edits was due to "original research" being sourced. All of our comments and additions were added based on source material which we had to read and scour though. For example, Cicero's De Republica was used a couple of different times, and all material used from this was taken from the source and then reworded to be in accordance with Wikipedia criteria. The exceptions would be direct quotes taken from the book, which were sourced accordingly. Without trying to sound contentious, it seems that you've taken it upon yourself to make this, page "Your Own." The essence of Wikipedia, at least as I understand it, is to be a place for peoples from all over to contribute to one larger body of knowledge with an ultimate goal of showing multiple concepts and ideas, and all facts which are applicable to the topic at hand. I feel our contributions, which you decided to remove, were of sound quality and sufficiently sourced. Judging by the plethora of comments from other Wikipedians that are on your talk page, I feel its safe to say that our concerns aren't just our own, but shared by others. I feel that anyone contributing to Wikipedia should all be held to the same standards and you seem to hold your views in higher esteem than you do of the rest of us. Bactx9 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers
The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing speedy tags
I don't know if you followed the AfD at Greg J. Marchand after you removed the speedy tag. That page was rotten to the core, and created by a sock and defended by socks at the AfD. Maybe just needs a bit of neutralising was very incorrect, and the AfD was a waste of time. Although, it drew out the socks... so that is something. Kind of. But please be more careful in the future. There are a lot of people out there who view WP as an important platform for promotion and abuse it that way. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I try to take care with everything I do on Wikipedia, and in this case I believe my removal of the speedy notice was entirely justified. That's not to say that an AfD wouldn't conclude with a deletion, just that the criteria for a CSD were not met.  I stand by my actions and would do them again.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm. Thanks for replying Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * . No problem.  Reading it back, my reply seems a bit more testy and defensive than I intended. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas
I noticed you removed my edit to the page for this book, with the explanation that "Referenced sources do not mention Blech or this book." However Blech claims the book's basic premise is impossible by making a historical statement of fact, that all children were killed immediately on arriving at Auschwitz. The sources I linked to were to refute his false historical claim. I think it's really important to make sure history is represented accurately, especially when it's to do with the Holocaust, so the deniers don't get any ammunition. Blech's statement is completely unsupported by historical evidence, so it should either be removed completely, or there should be a proper rebuttal to it, like I added. What do you think would be the preferable solution for the page? I'm open to suggestions. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message, . I understand what you are trying to do, and your good faith in doing it.  But unfortunately it's original synthesis, i.e. "this source (A) says this, but if we look at this other source (B), it says this, therefore we can conclude (C) that source (A) is mistaken".   If there are reliable sources that specifically discuss what Blech says about The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, and dispute it on these grounds, then you can discuss and cite them.  Essentially you need a source that has already performed the original synthesis, you cannot be the one to do it.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I read the section about original synthesis, but I don't see how that's what I'm doing. Blech contends something that's demonstrably and factually completely untrue, and he doesn't even give any sources. It's no different than if he said Tokyo is the capital of France. My linking to sources that prove he's mistaken isn't synthesizing anything. The examples on the original synthesis page involve using multiple outside sources to draw a conclusion not present in either one. Both sources I linked to simply prove there were children living at Auschwitz, as in the book and movie, which Blech states, categorically, and without evidence at all, never happened. Blech's false and misleading claim that the entire premise of this respected film is a lie is dangerous and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. His claim should either be removed from the page for the book completely, or refuted. Holocaust deniers seize on any inconsistencies in the historical narrative, the last thing we should do is give them more ammunition, like this. Jamesluckard (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

idk
lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.130.199 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what you're doing.
Firstly when you wish to make a warning about WP:3RR, please make sure you start a new section on the talk page. Secondly, I did 2 reverts then stopped and went to the talk page. Please pay attention in future. Alssa1 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I use Twinkle for these sort of things, a widely used Wikipedia gadget. If it already finds a section headed with the Month and Year it doesn't create another.  Sorry, but that's what it does.
 * Secondly, I didn't see your comment on the talk page. Apologies for that.  But that doesn't negate the two revert you performed and it's always better that an editor is aware or policy rather than blocked. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And now I see that you've just gone ahead and put your addition in again, without further discussion. So I guess you really did need the situation explained to you. As my warning explained, attempting to game WP:3RR on technicalities won't stop you being blocked. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "without further discussion" please read: Talk: Saudi Arabia. Alssa1 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Alan Green
There is no evidence anywhere of a feud between Green and Ferguson. All the articles you quote are just reporting Green's own comments. You cannot say there was any feud unless you have evidence and one persons (Green) words are NOT evidence. Chirpy Red (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , the point is that reliable sources accept what Green says and have discussed it. That's all that Wikipedia requires, "evidence" is not needed.   If you wish to include anything refutes this then you need a reliable source that does it.  Find that reliable source and you can place it in the article.   Until then, please stop adding what is essentially your own challenge and thoughts. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Alan Green
No you are wrong. Your "reliable sources" are just reporting Greens words, they do not say they believe it nor do they back him up by saying they knew independently of the "feud". I am not going to give up on this but I'll meet you halfway. I'll just add this (which is reasonable) "It has to be said though that Sir Alex Ferguson has never mentioned the feud." Ok? Chirpy Red (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Who says it has to be said? Who says that Sir Alex Ferguson has never mentioned the feud?  Who is privy to his every word?  You need a reliable source that does this.
 * I didn't say that they believed him. I said that they accepted his words. The fact that the reliable sources are willing to repeat Green's words and consider the feud worth reporting is all that Wikipedia needs.  If they don't specifically say they believe him or not, it's not up to you to make the case for those who don't believe him.  You need a reliable source that does this. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please assist me
Please, please undo all your edits to the Thaddeus Golas article ASAP - HE DIED IN 1997 - I worked so hard on his article so that he is not forgotten. His work will most likely remain obscure forever. What you have perceived as promotion is actually only my attempt to give Golas' hypothesis some semblance of a presence in the world of philosophy. No one is making a profit from sales of his books. Seed Center's "promotion is the minimum required to merely keep Golas' work extant. Metaphysics Man (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was my mistake that I didn't take into account that he died in 1997. Naturally, Biography of Living Persons guidelines don't apply.  However, the article could still do with references.  Cites to his own book are good, but it would be preferable if there were some third party cites.  I had a quick google, but couldn't find anything suitable. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the attention to Thaddeus Golas article. I'm a novice here and had a hard time being neutral since Thad was a personal friend and I have great belief in his work. Wondering about the notice of his article being of interest to WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs. This must have come from the mention of LSD in the original article on Golas created by Sylvain Despretz at Seed Center Books. At this point the article itself doesn't mention LSD. In the audio recording of the author reading his Lazy man's Guide he omitted the word LSD which was in the text. I'm an old stodgy guy who doesn't want references to drugs in this article because I know Golas was a sober individual who didn't use any substances outside of a single brief period. So I wonder if we should sever the connection to that WikiProject? I wonder if they should divide that project into two: Psychoactive Drugs and Recreational Drugs. Seems like two unique tracks to me. Case in point: I found the main tag on the Golas article was "Thaddeus Golas: American Drug Advocate". This was what first motivated me to enter Wikipedia; to fix that. I noticed the article was still a stub and took a strong interest in improving it. Thanks again for your time and attention Metaphysics Man (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Felicia Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Felicia_Day check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Felicia_Day?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Boy George
Thank you. I have rewritten the text slightly on the Boy George page to prevent the repetition of the decade reference but to state the year the band was formed. No offence to you, with all due respect, but I do not understand the difficulty here. I think that making Wiki articles as detailed as possible is sound practice. I have taken the issue to the Talk Page as well as you advised.(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC))


 * Reply on Talk:Boy George. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to describe what's already noteworthy, not to list imaginative new ways of insulting people
Please stop deleting my articles, your not an Australian, or someone who knows anything of Aboriginals or fitness models — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton36 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea what you're talking about. You seem to have gone on a spree of inexplicable edits. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Baldwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/William_Baldwin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/William_Baldwin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

27 Club
Hi - with reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=27_Club&oldid=prev&diff=851623177

Could you explain why you felt that the section I added about the Ed Sheeran song constitutes original research, and the 'Uno' by Rex Orange County entry doesn't please?

Happy to remove it, just seems inconsistent. I think it's pretty clear that both are referencing the 27 club, but equally linking to the lyrics on genius may not constitute a second hand source per the Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havfunonline2 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree,, it's a thin line and there's not a great deal of difference between the two. The danger with citing song lyrics is that it can involve interpretation of the lyric, inferring what the song means.  This is the original research.  Citing where Sheeran mentions the age 27 and making a will, simply suggests he fears he may die young.  No mention of the 27 Club in itself.  The Rex Orange County skirts the line, I think, but at least states dying at 27 and becoming a legend.   Both songs probably refer to the same meme, but we shouldn't be interpreting them for Wikipedia, a reliable source needs to be doing that. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Roberto Baggio ‎and Alessandro Del Piero
I really don't see what was wrong with the initial edits to be honest...the game hasn't been released yet so to me it seemed odd to say that X would featured in this game. I really think that it's a minor thing, and I've been editing those pages for a long time and ensured that they both got up to Good Article status. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How else would you say that X will feature in this game? I've explained what was wrong with it. There is no point leading with the source of the information, rather than the information itself, when the cite tells the reader the source if they are interested. It's needless duplication and verbiage that adds nothing.  For instance;
 * "On 3 August 2018, EA Sports announced on their official Twitter account that "
 * What's the significance of the date? Who cares when it was announced?  Surely the only date that matters is when the game will be released?
 * Who else is going to announce this? Who else determines who will appear in an EA game than EA themselves?
 * What twitter account do they have that isn't their official one? Where else could they announce things on Twitter, other than on their account?
 * You also really shouldn't revert a valid edit without any explanation, and then be unable to justify it except with "I liked it as it was, and I should know". Also, not using edit summaries is not good Wikipedia etiquette. It suggests you think that no-one else has any business understanding what you're doing, which I doubt is what you are thinking. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be civil; I've been on here a while and have contributed to improving a lot of football articles. I didn't mean to seem impolite by changing it back, so I'm sorry if that's the case and apologise, it's just that I like being precise and accurate, so I usually like mentioning everything included in the source, and I had used a similar format for other players' inclusion in football video games like PES and FIFA as "Legends" or "Icons". Like I said, to me this is a fairly minor issue, and I don't think it's worth arguing over this, and I think that you're blowing things out of proportion a bit. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you think I'm not being civil.  Being precise and accurate isn't really a reason for including irrelevant detail about the source.  Otherwise the Roberto Baggio would start;
 * "Roberto Baggio (Italian pronunciation: [roˈbɛrto ˈbaddʒo]; born 18 February 1967) is an Italian former professional footballer who mainly played as a second striker, or as an attacking midfielder, although La Repubblica said on 6 October 2001 that Baggio is capable of playing in several offensive positions."
 * If you've been here a while, then it's long enough for you to appreciate the importance of edit summaries. Please use them. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I do use edit summaries, and this one time that I didn't I apologised; I deal with many users who mess around with those pages so I made a wrong assumption that you were one of them, which you are obviously not, and changed it back... don't take it to heart and act all passive aggressive, as I didn't mean any harm, and there are plenty more important things to be concerned about in life. I'm far from being a troublesome user on here; quite the opposite. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm looking at your last 100 edits right now.  Other than those that automatically have included a section heading, there are three that have edit summaries. As I said; edit summaries are good and help avoid misunderstandings, particularly when you are reverting others work. That's why when I edited the page I specifically explained; "Focus on what's happening, not how it was announced. That's in the cite."  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Wnek
You might want to contribute to the discussion as to whether this page should be deleted as you have edited it in the past Cdosteovsky (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding item
Hello. How i can add item to this table? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_chat_websites Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.1.207.203 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Socking
I do hope you are not logging out to revert, cause it sure seems so. Noting the need to make weak arguments in both edit summaries. Quack. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I hope you stop with the personal attacks on other editors and your edit warring. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, you "are" the other editors! Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop this. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Traveling Gnome
Hi. You removed a edit I made to the Traveling Gnome page because of the source I offered. (It was a fan page.) I actually also had a primary source -- the TV episodes themselves -- but didn't know how to link to them. The episodes are on YouTube as well but I wasn't sure if linking to YouTube episodes were valid. Bottom line: the edit I made was legit and even mentioned the specific episode numbers. How do I cite TV content better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjfrank (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Kate Madison
hi brother, could you add the stats and remove the invalid sources kind regards brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C72:AF00:9881:142:4745:A65F (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's all invalid. See the talk page. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Darbyshire page
The name of the series is unique and therefore belongs within the page. This is informational, not promotional. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daggonghent (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please create an article first, and be prepared to demonstrate the book's notability. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

hihuman
what is your name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElJesusChrist00 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

expected removal
hi i expected the removal i just wanted to see who has an interest in sash windows. Please drop me a personal email at  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonssashwindows (talk • contribs) 12:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Denise van Outen
Hi A mobile user has added that she is sleeping with Danny DeVito. Could you revert? - i don't have that facility and you recently reverted some other vandalism. her current boyfriend seems to be https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/denise-van-outen-knew-boyfriend-10332253 Eddie Boxshall thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Very nice. What about vandalism? . If I can not undo it (3RR), please reverted this vadalism. Subtropical -man (talk / en-2 ) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comments here. A content dispute is not vandalism. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Escape_Orbit, if the article has problems, every user have the right to add templates like {fact} etc to article. There is no doubt here.
 * User:WikiInspector42 has no right to delete templates like {fact} or other added by other user without improving the article or/and consensus (the discussion is under way).
 * Your reaction is pure nonsense. Your solution is completely wrong, I do not agree with it. You do not distinguish between two things: there may be differences of opinion between the two users but no user can break the rules. If the user deletes the template of {fact} or other from article without correcting the problem or consensus, this is vandalism. So, please restore templates in article removed by user:WikiInspector42 . Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 23:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTVANDAL. I'm not inclined to get drawn into your content dispute on this article. Sorry. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that everyone (even IP and new users) can remove tags from articles and experienced editors can not do anything because if reverted it more than twice, the administrator will not do anything except for the warning of both persons?!? User as a victim of the Wikipedia system. The administrator can always restore the tags, block the article or user, ordinary editor is defenseless against the trolls and the administrator does not want to help. I add the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, maybe I will start discussions on this topic elsewhere. It must end :/ Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 00:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. Next personal attack by user:WikiInspector42, omitting previous personal trips and calling vandalism to correctly restore deleted tags. Is this also ok? Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 00:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not ok. I also warned WikiInspector42 to stop. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)