User talk:Grandpallama/Archive 1

Geraldine Page edits
I appreciate your notification concerning the Geraldine Page article. As far as I can determine, and my edits were most likely reviewed by editors responsible for the editorial drive, I did not remove any sourced material. I did tighten up and correct poorly written sentences. I will revert to the article to the last clean edit. Thank you!

Quill and Pen (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will contact an admin concerning the reverting of a copy edited article that was done during the GOCE drive. As I wrote earlier, I am a retired professional writer, have a degree in English, and am well grounded in good writing. The edits I made to the Page article were done to bring the article up to speed and you have reverted those edits. If you could explain why you made those changes and reverted the article to a less well written one I would like to hear the explanation. Quill and Pen (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Death of Rebecca Zahau
I will review my edits and take appropriate action, if needed. Thank you!

Quill and Pen (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reverted your Zahau article edits too. You had the name incorrectly spelled in the article. Also, I am a retired professional writer and have a degree in English. I do know how to write. Sometimes I do make mistakes, and I appreciate assistance, but in this case the edits I made were the correct ones. If you have problems with these edits, that were reviewed by the editorial guild, please contact an admin. I do not wish an edit war. Thank you! Quill and Pen (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, in the Zahau article what I was factually and grammatically correct: The child died from a fatal fall not a life-threatening fall. The child died so it was fatal. Using the term life-threatening is a lot like writing an unexpected death. All deaths are unexpected as no one knows the date or time of our death. A lot of people do write unexpected death and that is a waste of words. KISS is best when it comes to tight, factual writing. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The same could be said concerning your edits. I made good-faith edits are part of the Copy Editors Guild editing project. I tried to tighten sentences while attempting to maintain the contributions of others. That is what copy editing is all about. Thanks for your input. Quill and Pen (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is nothing but arrogance. Your writing shows no evidence of you being qualified to do it as a profession, and even if you were you have no right to demand that others cease working on any article. No administrator will listen favourably to your pleas and many would consider blocking you. Read the rules before you contribute further is the best advice I could give you, and then start with something simple. 194.83.172.131 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa! While I appreciate the support and can't say I entirely disagree with the sentiments expressed here, this matter is now closed. Quill and Pen made some inappropriate edits and ignored some basic Wikipedia policy regarding both the Death of Rebecca Zahau and Geraldine Page articles, but an admin was contacted, reviewed the situation, and intervened to instruct Quill and Pen to cease the disruptive behavior. Situation resolved, no matter how much Quill and Pen continues to post about it. You may want to rethink your own comments, since you don't want any accusations about a lack of civility leveled against yourself. If you have had, or continue to have issues with Quill and Pen, I recommend contacting an admin yourself. I don't want any wars on my talk page. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil response. I appreciate it. Quill and Pen (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes
I've left a message on that user's talk page, and placed Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes on my watchlist. I'll monitor the situation to see how it develops. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem! Grandpallama (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Service codename
I'm unclear on your statement of the listing for Albert Gore being "Rediculous". It is unclear in the source whether it refers to VP Gore's father Albert Gore, Sr. 1907-1998 or his son born 1982.Naraht (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The context makes clear that the codename is obviously tied to the son. Gore Sr. finished his service in the Senate in 1970 (and Senators don't receive Secret Service protection, anyway), and fathers of vice presidents don't receive Secret Service protection, either. However, 10-year-old boys whose fathers have just been elected to the vice presidency do receive Secret Service protection. There is absolutely no valid reason why this would be anyone other than Al Gore's son. If nothing else, why would codenames be listed for all the boy's sisters, but not for the boy himself? You are right that the source does not explicitly state "Albert Gore III," but I would argue that its failure to do so does not in any way call into question which Gore is being identified. Grandpallama (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Context? The reference is to a list ordered by codename. And Rose Kennedy *did* have a secret service code name. However I missed that Sarah Gore had the codename of 'Screwdriver' from that source.Naraht (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rose Kennedy was also an integral part of the extended Kennedy clan and was frequently at the White House. And your argument, as I already pointed out, doesn't make any sense, because if that codename were in reference to Gore's father, then where is the codename for Gore's son? That's the point of the context.
 * All that said, though, I don't think this really matters. As I was reading, it just stuck out to me as ridiculously obvious, and so I removed it. If you feel that strongly about it, put it back in there. Grandpallama (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment was more on the comment about it being 'rediculous' I thought that it was *possible* given the lack of all of the children. As I noted, with Sarah being there, having each of the kids makes more sense and I'm sure it is Gore III. On a different point. Since Albert Gore III and Sarah don't have separate wikipedia pages, should they be in the lists?Naraht (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And my apologies if my edit summary came across as rude--that was not my intent. As for your question, I don't think I'm really qualified to weigh in on that, since I'm not really an expert on the subject matter. It might be something worth asking on the talk page, actually. Grandpallama (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hello G. Thanks for the ping. I wanted to let you know that I suspect the person editing that page is our long-term problem editor from Burton-(up)on-Trent. See info at these links for more info.


 * User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal
 * Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232

Now there are a couple anomalies this time which I have mentioned here User talk:Drmies. This may be more info than you want but I thought I would make you aware of the situation. Thanks for your time and your vigilance is much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I definitely appreciate the info, and it looks like Drmies has already blocked him. The edits certainly struck me as disruptive, but I'd been wondering if I was being too impatient by not trying to be more AGF-ey. Now I feel relieved to know I pegged the situation correctly. Grandpallama (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Machete Kills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to William Sadler


 * Terminator 2: Judgment Day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Casper

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The IPs you've been reverting
Hi Grandpallama, you've been reverting a number IPs as socks. Would you please let me know whose socks they are? It might also be beneficial to file an SPI so that we can take further action. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Callanecc. The user is an IP user from UK who has previously been identified as a problem editor. Lately he has returned, always using different IPs, adding disruptive edits (changing film categories, rewriting ledes to include very poorly-written English, removing information without explanation), and moving to a new IP each time he gets blocked. Users Doniago and MarnetteD have also been part of the effort to revert his edits, including getting some of the pages semi-protected. Drmies is aware of the situation, and as you can see, has rolled back the editor's changes on multiple occasions. At first I was leaving an edit summary of "disruptive editing" or "unconstructive edits," but since he has lately taken to using a different IP each time Drmies blocks the latest IP, I had been using the term "IP sock editing." You can see some of the history and discussion about this editor | here, including the concerns we expressed that by continuing to patrol his problematic edits, we were going to become perceived as edit warring. If you'd prefer I continue to use something like "unconstructive edits" when we deal with his editing behavior, I can certainly return to that language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Marnette is more aware of this situation than I am, but yeah. I've made some blocks using the term "Burton-on-Trent vandal". Drmies (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I am afraid that my on-Wiki time is very limited this weekend. A few months ago we had an ANI thread about this with several relevant links. There was also a thread on Bishonen's talk page. I am sorry that I don't have the time to find them for you at the moment but maybe someone else will. One of these threads had a link to a SPI as well. I can tell you that the editor has been around for years now and has, sadly, never responded to messages or requests on the various talk pages. Cheers to all of you in working on this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been making some headway by requesting protection for the pages in question...unfortunately while I note that multiple articles are being impacted, that part apparently goes ignored. I don't understand why we should need to request protection for each article individually when it's clearly an IP sock editor editing the same pages every time. DonIago (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Machete Kills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Sadler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 September
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) 00:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Ping Pong Summer page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624846429 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter 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%2F624846429%7CPing Pong Summer%5D%5D Ask for help])

Infobox photo discussion
Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion
Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pirates (1986 film)
To be fair, I can barely see the image on the source.If you can find a clearer one with Lewis and Jacobs on it, I'll be happy to go with that. Quentin X (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Move request
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series). Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, I'm TheOldJacobite. I noticed that you recently removed content from Class (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  The Old Jacobite  The '45  12:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * @TheOldJacobite I don't think this is meant for me, since I have not edited the page in question without edit summaries, nor have I removed content. I have, however, restored a coherent version of the plot summary that an anon IP keeps trying to replace without any edit summaries or talkpage discussion. Perhaps this warning was meant for him/her? Grandpallama (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is very strange, since I have never edited that article and didn't have it on my watch list (I just added it). So, yes, I am sure you are correct about my having put the warning in the wrong place.  I'm very sorry about that. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @TheOldJacobite Well now I know why it was so very strange. The anon IP (whom you recently reverted at the article in question) is the one who posted this ridiculous warning, using your username. I didn't even notice that, since it never occurred to me that someone would masquerade as you. It came to my attention today because it looks like he later tried to revise the edit, replacing your info with his, but a well-meaning user reverted the talkpage edits. This looks like a mixture of edit warring and incompetence, from what I can see. Grandpallama (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is very interesting! And, yes, also incompetent.  We're going to have to keep an eye on him. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  17:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Those other accounts are from other people in my home, not me.


 * You can address it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fourlaxers. Grandpallama (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Brudos
Dddwwwps (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)I appreciate that you reverted using a BLP claim instead of the completely bogus assertion that using a fake name from an Ann Rule book was preferable to the multiple primary source referenced and accurate name I corrected the article with. I disagree that BLP applies for multiple reasons, #1 being that "Facts are Facts" applies. It might well be appropriate to remove the factual name of the spouse of the subject of an article for other reasons, I would certainly defer to someone more experienced in Wikipedia in that regard. Repeated re-insertions of an unreferenced and inaccurate name, this is certainly not the first time, is puzzling.

Other Wikipedia articles of notorious people (example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway) list spouses. While it may be unfortunate to have been married to a serial killer, it remains factual and Wikipedia should be reporting facts (as opposed to the fictional name of Darcie that is too widely spread across the internet thanks to Ann Rule and subverting Wikipedia accuracy by replicating the name here does a disservice to Wikipedia). I was careful to not provide her current name, I'd find that to be only of prurient interest and certainly not public knowledge.

For those not familiar with Ann Rule books, she often changed the names of secondary characters in her books. In her book about Jerome Brudos she changed the name of his spouse, his children and his brother among other names. True crime books that provide no references are not, IMO, a place to source material for Wikipedia.


 * @Dddwwwps I'm not disputing the validity of the sources or the factual accuracy, but WP generally respects the wishes of people who don't just prefer not to go by an original name but who have made efforts to suppress its use for privacy/safety reasons. I think that's all the more true in the case of someone who deliberately changed her name and tried to start over with a new life in order to escape something very ugly, and who may still be alive. I'm generally more a supporter of not trying to censor information, but this particular case feels a bit different, even from other serial killers, which is why I've referred it to Oversight for a ruling. I'm not entirely sure BLP applies here, but my uneasiness is such that I'd prefer to err on the side of caution until guidance is provided. Grandpallama (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I love your user name
That's all I wanted to say, really. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Brewster's Millons
I'm not trying to start an edit war, I just thought the idea of "A stranger" in the summary was disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.239.225 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

hello
Thanks for your kind reply at ANI. I may have become more aroused while filing the report. you have to understand that this is not one off incident and has been going since past two month. That said, I agree there is no need for too much of a ranting. accordingly i have toned down some of my comments. Thanks. P.S. is your name spelled "Grand Pa Lama" or something else ? -- D Big X ray  16:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that will work to your benefit. I don't have enough content knowledge to know who is more correct, nor did I sift through all the diffs to make a determination about behavior, but I know that presentation plays a role in how editors and admins respond. You don't want to personalize the dispute by making it seem like you've lost your temper or are losing control. It's worth remembering that you can always walk away, because the diffs in a history of a page mean the previous work will never truly be lost. A day or two of deep breaths and no editing can make you return to a dispute feeling calmer and more centered. In any case, at the very least, I think you should stop responding at the ANI and see how things play out.
 * It does look like you might have deleted some of what you wrote (because I don't see the comment I responded to), and that's not a good idea. If you decided to tone down things you've already written, you should really strike them out with a line rather than removing them. The removal is usually seen as disruptive, since it makes unclear what later editors were responding to.
 * And it's "Grandpa Llama." Grandpallama (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, will follow your advice. I have already said everything I had to say, there is absolutely no need for me to reply anymore and I am not planning to.
 * No, I did not delete that comment, While pruning I noticed I had forgotten to add the indent mark in my final comment. So I added and my comment is shifted to the right, where it was supposed to be. If you prefer you can add an extra indent in your own comment so that it appears as a reply to my comment. I wanted to do it myself, but then on second thoughts I decided against any indentation of comment not belonging to my own. -- D Big X ray  19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Runciman
Can you specify what you felt was questionable about my adjustments?

I tried to tidy the flow of the article, grouped segments of praise and criticisms together (they were previously scattered in 3 segments) and tried to removed the overt implication that a number of Wiki users have previously highlighted: that because Runciman wasn't pro-Crusader he does not immediately become a biased source. By implication it comes across as though you're almost endorsing a view that being pro-Crusader makes you unbiased.

The article would still remain primarily as is after my edits. I think there is merit in further scrutiny of Runciman's critics, but you seem to not be in favour of that. My concern has always been, as some on the article talk section have also pointed out, the implication again that being pro-Crusader is the acceptable and an unbiased position and we can't scrutiny that any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscloud (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this is about a content dispute on an article, you should keep the discussion on the article's talkpage. I have responded to the thread you started there, but in short: the edits you are making today are almost identical to the edits you attempted to make in December 2017, and those edits were explicitly rejected as being against consensus. To reinsert them now without engaging in further discussion, or to claim that the previous discussion didn't clearly indicate a lack of consensus for these changes, is to edit war. Beyond that, you were expressly told by more than one editor that the inclusion of reliable sources does not indicate either bias or lack of bias among editors, nor do we try to present a particular viewpoint; rather, we present the viewpoint that is represented by reliable sources. As before, if you want to find reliable sources that support your assertions, that's to be encouraged, but you cannot simply remove supported and sourced text with which you disagree. Grandpallama (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Failures about violations
Why did I violate the article pages? My own article I created and you will never change is Soldam: Drop, Connect, Erase. Rectify 54 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for violating the edits Rectify 54 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What have I done? Rectify 54 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North to Alaska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Claim jumper ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/North_to_Alaska check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/North_to_Alaska?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) 10:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet, it's correct in this case! Grandpallama (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you offer your opinion in this discussion?
Hi. In the past you've offered your opinion in choosing photos for the Infobox. Can you offer your neutral opinion in this discussion on a related topic? It may go toward a precedent regarding captions. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I can verify the emails.
In regard to this post, I can verify that I myself have personally seen more than one email from more than one user intended to notify others that Hijiri88 was retired and on a self block. I thought it would be fair to Dream Focus to let you know the truth about this and also be fair to yourself to be enlightened about the actual events rather than leaving you with unknown suspicions that you might have have had. I hope this alleviates at least that small part of your concerns anyways. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is evidence going back years that DF follows Hijiri88 around, watches everything he puts on Wikipedia, and obsesses over ways to get him in trouble. I don't care if DF received e-mails or not, because the allegation that he doesn't follow Hijiri around is utter bullshit, confirmed repeatedly, resulting in previous blocks. And nothing about that ANI report is being done in good faith. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I haven't been around long enough to speak about the years of history between the two of them, and I'm not invested in it enough to investigate it. I just wanted to let it be known that the small part of the claim about the emails was at least in good faith. FWIW, I think DF just wants to be left alone and isn't trying to get H88 "in trouble", because if he were, he would seek something more than just an IBAN. I'm not saying DF is innocent here by any means. It appears to me that this feud between them has provoked some disturbing behaviour in both of them... Huggums537 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation
Thank you for your comments on POV pushing by Saff_V.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been left open for far too long, which is inviting too much sniping back and forth at this point, I think. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This was removed from the Ghost Ship fire talk page
I posted the following comment in the Ghost Ship fire talk page, in response to your comment about my possible conflict of interest. Qwirkle removed it, so you might not have had a chance to see it. I think the Ghost Ship fire page should be locked down and only edited by experienced, unbiased Wikipedia editors, especially as the trial is about to start and it is expected to be extremely confrontational. Qwirkle is so biased, he has started swearing at me in the talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if he is James Bowron or a friend of his.

I want to see full, fair and accurate information on this page, and I do know a lot of people who were personally impacted by this. Although I don't know anyone who died, so many people around Oakland did know one or more of the victims that a huge number of people have been touched by this tragedy. I have tried to be unbiased in my changes and comments, but the users Qwirkle and NorthBySouthBaranof aren't even trying to be fair or unbiased. Qwirkle clearly is biased and also extremely disrespectful of the victims and their friend and families, as seen by this revision history comment. "No, no attempt was made to rescue them because they were obviously already dead, donchaknow." Making fun of 36 dead people is not acceptable behavior. Qwirkle also gave no references to back up that statement. ANd Qwirkle's comment "Looking at the smoke conditions and the probability, the survivability of what the smoke was doing, if we were going to find anybody, they were going to be in that initial 25 to 50 feet from the front door and the initial hose stretch" seems to indicate they are a firefighter and potentially were even involved in the Ghost Ship firefighting effort. NorthBySouthBaranof admits to being a firefighter, and therefore has a definite conflict of interest. Their fellow firefighter Bowron's behavior may amount to manslaughter and they are obviously trying to protect him and the reputation of their profession. Both of them seem to have unacceptable conflicts of interest. This is a very important page, 36 innocent people died and James Bowron may have killed them through negligence or outright malice. 36 families lost loved ones. 2 men may spend the rest of their lives in prison, and this page says things about them that are not based on evidence. P37307 and Cullen328 have no apparent conflict of interest, and I would trust them to make edits much more than I would trust Qwirkle or NorthBySouthBaranof.Russ Tilleman (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and if you think it means you don't have a conflict of interest, then you don't understand either that term or the conflict of interest policy. Grandpallama (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Chairperson
Chairman has been criticized as sexist.

I have started a discussion based on that. See Talk:Chairperson if you are interested. Regards Guywan (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Cat in the Hat 2003 movie & Recurring Seaquest characters
I'm sorry I didn't intend to commit sock puppetry. For the former I noticed minor grammar errors like "One day, she is called back to the office" which is on the day of the party and "Once Joan leaves on a rainy day" and "However, when Joan sees the clean house and a messy Larry.", which ends with a period. What I didn't notice was my goof of "One the day of the Party" instead of "On the day of the Party".

For the latter, A Majority of Seaquest's crew survived. Dr. Wendy Smith and Miguel Ortiz were killed while Scott Keller's fate is unknown. Also Max Scully was killed.
 * Yes, you unintentionally created a new account, accidentally stumbled onto the old pages you previously edited, and inexplicably ended up hitting the "Publish changes" button on numerous poor edits that reinstated old versions of text that you edit-warred to maintain in the past. All quite the honest mistake, which will no doubt be thoroughly convincing to the admins at SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Dave (1993)
I also made some minor well intentioned edits for the movie Dave.

Frivolous
Will you keep joining and commenting on discussions about me just because we had a thing in the past? If "fuck off" is not bad, then I want you to fuck off them. Sebastian James what's the T? 18:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a WTF-level surprise on my talkpage. Let's see...


 * 1) I'm not sure what "thing" we had in the past, but I remember everyone I ever dated, and none of them was named "Sebastian". Nor do I know what discussions I "keep joining". It's a little flattering that you like to fantasize that we have some sort of history, but it seems mostly delusional to me.
 * 2) Anyone can comment on a thread at ANI. Anyone. I know you're having difficulty grasping how Wikipedia works, though.
 * 3) For someone who has such a history of being warned about behavior, it's pretty much the very height of density to seek out one of the editors who commented on that ANI thread (where almost every single commenter, including multiple admins, agreed with me) and place unnecessary provocation on his talkpage. I mean...it's like seriously dense. Especially to do the very thing that you supposedly, in supposed good faith, thought was bad and actually just opened an ANI thread about.
 * 4) I hope you enjoyed your chance to tell me to "fuck off" on my own talkpage, because you're no longer welcome to post on it.
 * Have a nice day! Grandpallama (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
Hi, I do hope you will have time to confirm that I am not a copyright violator. The spat between myself and the other editor was not begun with that accusation. I realize that my ANI filing seems retaliatory in that regard so I understand your position on the ANI. But I wanted you to know that I have no ill will toward you. I really just want to get along and contribute to the project. I hope when we cross paths on the project we only have good thoughts about each other.

RLM cast list
Thank you for your service. I should have taken the discussion to the talk page after the first edit reversion. It's there now. Proctris (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)