User talk:IdreamofJeanie/Archive 1

BC/BCE
IDOJ, The BC/BCE thing is a jumbled mess throughout Wikipedia. Either/or, but it should be consistent. Someone, more clever than I, could write a tool to standardize this throughout. Thanks Tiptopper (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SeeWP:ERA such a tool is not required or useful.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't like it; it seems disorganized, but thanks for the link to the information. Tiptopper (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

deletion of entry
I was the original content creator of the Wiki page on Brian Dailey. I have been made aware of issues related to the subject and would like to remove all of my contributions to this page. Gaw54 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not keep a collection of blank pages. If you want to removfe the content the page needs to be deleted. I have tagged page requesting an administrator looks and page and considers deleting. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Routledge
Hi IdreamofJeanie, noticing your revert, you might wish to take a look at the Commons:Category:Patricia Routledge I created, maybe there are some more for your to take a look at. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying that pictures af Patricia Routledge are somehow exempt from copyright laws? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I wouldn't know, but if they are not removed on commons, I guess there is no problem. I'll try to figure that out in a minute. In the meantime, I'll undo you revert, because imo the more people find out about the images, the quicker someone could come around knowing if they are exempt from copyright laws. :-) Lotje (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Correct history of Northern Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920

Hello,

please stop reverting the issue with Harland & Wolff ships built pre 1921 as they were all built in Ireland and not Northern Ireland as that first came into existence in 1921.

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

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say Northern Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the country that Belfast was in at that time

England
Please explain this. TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sure: Read the first line of the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And it says "country that is part of the United Kingdom" TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ................./\ /\ /\................. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So should the hatnote read "This article is about the country that is part of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see England (disambiguation)."? TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the hatnote is fine as it was: is there another country called England, that is not part of the UK? Have a look at the talk page, where it is made clear that the concensus at Wikipedia is to call England a country. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jobanpreet Singh
Hello IdreamofJeanie. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jobanpreet Singh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Roles in notable films is a WP:CCS. Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Islam
Hello Ji!!! Bhaijaan your edits were on Islam, are not helping Wikipedia, my contributions means that it is based on Ambaraman God concept watch the source I provided, yes one more thing!!! Thanks for your edits on Ghazwatul Hind (prophecy).
 * Wikipedia can not claim any one religion is "The TRUE religion", as adherants of every religion, by definition, believe that theirs is the truth. We must remain impartial. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am not saying that Islam is only truth. I am try to improve that, Islam says God is one, and Muhammad was God (Allah)'s last massenger. and it's a unique religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApniPiyaasKoSpriteKar (talk • contribs) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly what the edit I have removed said :"It is also the truth-based religion".The whole article explains Islamic beliefs about Allah and Muhammad, but whatever your beliefs, Wikipedia can not endorse one religion over any other by saying that one religion is true. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Janab, you are not thinking we'll, I am not trying to broke non-muslims heart ❤️ and belief, I was trying to say that it is a unique religion but not new, think when Hazrat Adam (Adam) was born first so how can we improve that Islam is new and created by Muhammad (Peace be Upon) Muhammad was messanger of Allah who was sent by Allah to teach people about Islam, he completed the religion. Thank you - ApniPiyaasKoSpriteKar (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support
Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive copy edit support/input help any of the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.


 * Draft:Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Islamic culture

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, IdreamofJeanie! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.


 * Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
 * Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.


 * Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
 * Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.


 * Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.


 * Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.


 * Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!


 * and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767  talk!  20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn - Quick Survey
Hello IdreamofJeanie! Thank you so much for testing RedWarn so far. I kindly ask that you fill in a short survey regarding the future of RedWarn and to help me visualise general user opinion surrounding certain features.

To access the survey, visit: https://devices.edxt.net/redwarnSurvey

Thank you again for your continued feedback and support, it is greatly appreciated. Ed6767  talk!  22:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like to opt-out of receiving messages regarding RedWarn, or have any questions, please let me know on my talk page.

RedWarn survey
Hello! Thank you for filling in the survey! Did you know that RedWarn also lets you preview a userpage while creating a new notice? You can click the "preview this months warnings" or "preview userpage" buttons to the right of the target box in the new notices page. Hope this helps! Ed6767  talk!  10:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Electronic harassment - Integration to existing page
The paragraph I is intended as an addition/integration to existing main paragraph. Reference are shown at the bottom of my submission. ShellyMM (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts to "short description" in the HP Saturn article
Is there any good reason why you have reverted my edits to the "short description" in the HP Saturn article? Specifically, you changed the "short description" to just "Family of 4-bit microprocessors". But, what is "4-bit"? Is it the datapath size? The data word size? The instruction word size? The register size? etc. I explained in my edit that your version of the "short description" was too generic / ambiguous but you instead ignored that and reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HP_Saturn&diff=962753961&oldid=962745608 back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HP_Saturn&diff=962774163&oldid=962753961. I know that it is preferable for the "short description" to fit within 40 characters, but exceptions can be made, and I believe this is a case of that here. Specifically, I believe that the "short description" should be "Family of 4-bit datapath microprocessors" as the Saturn CPU has 20-bit data pointer registers, 64-bit GPR and scratch registers, other registers of various sizes, a variable length nibble aligned instruction word size, a basic data word size of 4 bits ( which is used in a nibble-serial fashion to operate on larger data sizes ) and a 4-bit datapath. "Family of 4-bit datapath microprocessors" should be the "short description" as otherwise the description is ambiguous and could confuse the reader. If there are no objections, I'll change the "short description" to "Family of 4-bit datapath microprocessors" instead of just "Family of 4-bit microprocessors". Jdbtwo (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Since you haven't responded, I'll take adding "datapath" to the "short description" of HP Saturn article as a "yes". Jdbtwo (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I hadn't responded you could perhaps take it that Ii have a life outide wikipedia and may not be here every day. And from your comment I assume I can take it that you accept that your original edit was way outside the limits of "Short Description" but are determined to have the last word. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Dobsonian telescope
I reverted your removal of adjectives "massive" and "huge", as they both appear in the referenced sources and reinforce the statement that truss Dobs are the largest telescopes commercially available. Not that I'm necessarily married to those adjectives, but please consider that reasoning. By the way, thanks for adding the Short Description. Assambrew (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

wow
Who r u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska dupan (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * me. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Britannia (TV series)
There is further discussion here if you would care to include your input. Thanks, PAVA11 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Telescope article
Hi, I just saw my images (3D model and render) were removed from the article. Can you explain to me what was wrong with it, please? I already explained to moderators those are my original models uploaded in folder Dape (named by me) on 3DfindIT.com portal and I am giving it for free for educational purposes. They agreed everything is OK and no rules were broken considering I own copyrights and followed all rules by WikiMedia Commons and Wikipedia. Every information and help is appreciated, considering I am new here and respect rules and guidelines and simply want to contribute articles with my 3D models and renders which are giving for free. Thank you in advance! Dape13 (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry to disagree, but your images really have little value in an encyclopedia. The STL was was of very poor quality, and the other was not substantially different to another image already in the article.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing my 3D models from Telescope and compass articles
Hi Idreamof Jeanie! I got a notification that my own 3D models and renders are removed from Telescope and Compass articles (and, if I understood correctly, I got warning?). I would like to explain that all 3D models are my own creations and I own copyrights, they are located in my own folder DAPE on portal 3DfindIT.com. I am new here and hope I did not break any rules/guidelines of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Again, they are my own models and I own copyrights. The link leads to my own folder DAPE and people can download models for educational purposes considering we live in 21st Century and many people use 3D models. I would also like to mention that I am giving it for free. By editing existing articles on Wikipedia and adding my own 3D models, we provide more information (especially to younger generation who use this technology a lot) and readers can zoom specific 3D model, rotate it in order to see it from different angles and then use it for their own educational purposes. I honestly hope my explanation makes things more "clear" now when I explained that all models and renders are my own and all rules were followed. Please, let me know what do you think and if you have any tips, suggestions for me, it is highly appreciate, so I can continue with uploading my 3D models (and giving it for free) and editing specific articles by adding specific 3D models related to the subject. Thank you very much in advance! Dape13 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Morning, No one is questioning that your images are your own work (Or that there is a lot of work involved) but that is not the question. Both the article in question already have multiple images (telescope has 12 telescope images, and compass has 13 compasses) in both cases your image was very similar to one already in the article, so added nothing informative to the reader. Perhaps you could look for articles without an existing image (or with only a couple) and provide something for some of those, because there are some that could do with something. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Rick Larsen
Hello,

Revisions I made to this page keep getting rolled back because it’s been considered either vandalism or not constructive. The information added to this article is relevant, factual, and reliably cited. I’m confused on how the added content does not follow guidelines.

Please advise. 2601:601:9C00:46E:15F4:CC82:B52B:9AC7 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the article. The text you are trying to add is in fact the entire content of the article. Already. It's there, in the article. If you actually read the article rather than blinly reverting previous edit you would know this. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Couscous
One finds the remains of the first (known) utensils in the region of Tiaret (present-day Algeria), where the kitchen tools dating from the ixe century that have been discovered resemble very strongly the main cooking tool of the couscous: the couscoussier.  Culinary historian Lucie Bolens  KarimAohh (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, but You Tube is not a reliable source, and your other source states "Manger au Maghreb" with no further detail. We have a source showing couscous as "a staple food of the Maghrib" so we stick to the reliable source. Oh, and when your edit has already been reverted (six times)with the comment - "This has been reverted many times for a reason" simply re-adding it again is not the way to make any progress. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In Youtube professor is Denis Saillard says : The oldest traces this found in Algeria
 * How can we refuse this source ?
 * KarimAohh (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Pink Panthers
You claim that my edit to the Pink Panthers page was not constructive? based on what references are you claiming that and what makes you an expert in this theme? I talked to the real pink panthers and wrote the book about them for 3 years, and how can you claim that my input was not constructive without even reading the book and the robberies which were explained in detail in this 500-page book? I would understand that you read the book and then may claim that it is not good enough, and again I would ask you based on which references are you an expert in this theme?
 * No, the onus is on you to provide reliable sources for your additions. Reliable sources means published, independent sources - see WP:RS for more details. And this is an encyclopedia, we do not use such phrases as "shocking details were revealed". and lastly when one user reverts your edits as self promotional and self published, simply adding them back again (and again, and again) is not going to work - see WP:3RR. You might want to read WP:COI as well. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Swastika does NOT belong to the Nazi's, it never did!
Cultural misappropriation! Please stop claiming that it belongs to Nazi's, you are dehumanizing a culture that existed for 1000's of years and many practicing Hindus around the world! Virs1 (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,No the swsatika does not "belong" to the Nazis, but then nor does it "belong" to you. The swastika was USED by the Nazis, as every single published source will testify. Your edits are clearly not Neutral POV. please stop. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect! It is NOT the swastika! They misappropriated and changed it, a horrible symbol ! Virs1 (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits are clearly ignorant and lies, saying it "was" a symbol of luck is wrong! And Yes, Swastika belongs to the Hindu religion as much as the Star of David belongs to Jewish people, please stop propagating lies and hate! Virs1 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * please provide a source for your statement that the Nazis did not use a swastika (we know what the Germans called it, but this is the English Wikipedia and we use what most people speaking English call the Nazi flag). The Article (before you altered it) correctly said: "In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s". note especially that link to Western world. It says nothing of its use in india. Most people in Europe, the Americas, and Australasia associate the swastika with the Nazi regime. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your revert
An user added a content in Madonna's article without a source. Please be advise I found later that source and you can check in my edit. I didn't add that in LEAD but in the "Music videos and performances" section. I'm missing something or wha'ts going on with that reverting edit? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , We can't say she is the greatest as a direct statement. That is a subjective opinion. If whichever pundit says she is the greatest then all Wikipedia can say is that so and so rated her the greatest. Let their renown add weight to the statement, it is not Wikipedia claiming it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Madonna ranking
Regarding your edit here, I should point out that the user did in fact provide a citation for the ranking on videos under the "Music video and performances" section, even if you object to its inclusion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see comment above. It was made as a quantifiable statement, not a journalist's opinion. the source was separated from the statement so it read as if it is an absolute fact that she is the greatest, and of course it is just one (Well qualified) person's opinion IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I could tell, they were trying to attribute it to Billboard magazine by extending "According to Billboard, Madonna is the most successful solo artist in its Hot 100 chart history" into "According to Billboard, Madonna is the most successful solo artist in its Hot 100 chart history and the greatest video music artist of all time". Maybe it just needed to be phrased differently as "and ranked her as the greatest vieo music artist of all time" or something along those lines. Either way, when lead sections are supposed to summarize article content, references tend to be preserved for the article body instead. Do you believe this is one of those cases where putting that link in the lead would've helped? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with SNUGGUMS. Personally, I just tried to justify the previous user's edit with the source. Maybe is how it was write. We can put something like 100 Greatest Video Artists of All Time, since is a list, as is with any Forbes or Rolling Stone lists (100 Greatest Artists of All Time and the 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time). No matter if you believe if is true or not since is not Wikipedia:PEACOCK. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, but it certainly needed attributing when the claim was first made. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, having reread it, it was ther, but needed reading a third time. to link it, my error/. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, and attribution is indeed crucial here. SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for reverting that idiot's edit. If you come across them in the future, especially reverting my edits writing crap in non-English kindly revert them. This guy/girl/whatever has been hounding me for almost a month.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * No Worries. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Abu hamza
Why do you keep changing my description of Abu hamza? 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:711C:102B:D4F3:E3BE (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Renaissance Men
Renaissance Men's I Want A Hippopotamus For Christmas recording has more streams and views than people have actually looked at the song's Wikipedia page. Thank you for so carefully monitoring its content. See you in six months when we make our oh so humble appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:CA02:7260:C1F4:6F9B:6E1A:DE25 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding minor edit I made in Battle of Bosworth Field" that you reverted: you were right. My mistake. Sorry. I should have checked before editing. Thanks for catching it.

Warren Buffet
Why do you keep reverting my Warren Buffet edits? They help the article. The chicken link doesn't but I got rid of that. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I would appreciate it if you didn't revert my good edits. Joethechickenguy (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you stopped adding stupid links to articles, people might take you seriously and look at the next edit. Do you really epect someone to see "Joe the chicken" adding a link to a breed of chicken, to then look further and see what else you may have written? I saw clear unmistakeable, repeated, vandalism, and reverted it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

John Quarry dates
Evening Bashereyre, hope you had a good Christmas. Could you please check the dates for John Quarry's term of office. I am certain it did not start in 1984, but I suppose it could have been either 1884, or 1894, so i won't alter it myself. Cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And to you Jeannie!
Yes it was 1894

BCE VS BC
There are very good reasons to change the references to the outdated method of era definition.

Since the later 20th century, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications as culturally neutral terms. They are used by others who wish to be sensitive to non-Christians by not explicitly referring to Jesus as "Christ" nor as Dominus ("Lord") through use of the other abbreviations.[7][8][b][c] Webdeva (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:Era for Wikipedias views on the matter, IdreamofJeanie (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Hello. Just a quick note to ask you to only to report issues to WP:AIV if they relate to purely to vandalism. Having seen your report at AIV, I have blocked User:152.86.164.35 for one week for edit warring, though I didn't feel their edits were vandalistic. I would really like to avoid unnecessary timewasting of admin resources if we can ensure that the right reports are made at the right places. That said, thanks for your concerns. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Revert
Thank you for reverting the edit made in August on the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians article. Denise B-K (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Denisebk

Reverting my categories
Thank you for your efforts in reverting my categories recently applied. However, each categorisation has been applied as each page has direct relevance to Combe Down. Thank you for your help, but I would be grateful if you would not revert my categorisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstoke1 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, while you may believe that your additions are appropriate, they are not so, as Combe Down is not relevant to the pages you are adding. just one example, look at Bank engine and the list of locations around the world where they are used. None of those locations appear as categories of bank engine, as the places are not part of bank engine, even though bank engines may be important to the locations. Again sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your edits will be undone, if not by me then someone else in an hour or two. That is not how categories are supposed to work. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that guidance. I do disagree with some of your reversions eg Our Lady and the English Martyrs Church which is constructed almost entirely of stone mined specifically from Combe Down stone and is important for the catalogue of buildings thus attributed. Also I don't like your tone "seriously?" as yes, I was serious of course. --Winterstoke1 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Britannia controversy: why are you saying the claim is outrageous?
There is a 3 page article written by a well-respected IP and business journalist (Telegraph, The Economist, etc.), referencing a screenwriter and academic who has written for the UK's biggest shows (and co-wrote an academy award nominated film) supporting Krushkoff's claim of the creation of the work? Considering the other subject exoert support he has received (referencable) and the fact these have been published in multiple sources, it warrants mention on Britannia's wiki page, if not an article on its own.92.40.169.3 (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) see previous discussion on Talk page and WP:DRN and
 * 2) see WP:BRD, and WP:3RR Editor made three reverts to this article in 24 hours. If you wish to take it to talk page and can gain a concensus for this claim, please do so. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with any old discussion and from my research into the matter, I've noted the reference I added is to a well-sourced, internationally distributed publication which was published afterwards. Rather than justify your position that the claims in it are 'nonsense' and 'outlandish' (how can they be when supported by multiple academics and actual subject experts - or are you saying their views are nonsense), or disproving the fact that they've been reported in national media (therefore warranting a place within the article) you are trying to act like a Wiki-lawyer and find reasons not to include the edit, ergo hiding the truth. So before we move onto the next stage, can you first explain why you've used such biased language and are trying to hide a well-known position - there is a very real controversy about who created the show which is supported by a significant and growing amount of the public? Thank you 2A04:4A43:407E:D90A:0:0:3E7:BD5A (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit has been discussed extensively on article talk page, as well as dispute resolution noticeboard, and considered a fringe theory, with WP:BLP concerns. IF you want the issue reconsidered, you will need to take it to the talk page and gain a new consensus. In addition, once the edit had ben reverted the first time, it should not have repeatedly re-added without reference to talk page (see Bold Revert Discuss) simply re-adding again and again is just disruptive and gets nowhere. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, you seem to be avoiding answering my question directly and using delflecting tactics to do so. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any old debate or even whether my edit should be included. Once again, I am kindly asking you, directly, to explain why you have used the words 'outlandish' and 'nonsense' to describe the independently published views of countless subject experts, academics and members of the general public. 2A04:4A43:40FF:5435:0:0:430:3CE7 (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same claim, with same arguments, same language and same bullying editting as was declined six months ago, so yes, pretty much a nonsense attempt to override community consensus. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bullying? Asking politely to justify the harsh language you used isn't bullying. Again you have criticised me and, respectfully, not supported your original statement with anything factual at all (it's all opinion).

You wrote: 'This nonsense' has been discussed extensivelly, and no credence given to 'outlandish claim'.

I posted:  a link to a published article by a well-respected journalist, which references an award-winning, internationally known, subject expert who fully supports the view that Britannia is based on an unauthorised adaptation.

Once again, I ask you to kindly to confirm how it is nonsense or outlandish. Are you suggesting the article doesn't exist? Or that the views of the subject specialists (not mine) are outlandish??? I am genuinely confused here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:417F:ADDC:0:0:45A:6353 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I answered your question above: the edit i reverted was substantially the same in content tone and repeated reversions as those that had resulted in an editor being blocked six months ago for disruptive editing. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit I posted wasn't the same, though. I have a referenced an entirely new, published article, written by a subject expert, who quotes another. You have said their views are 'nonsense' and 'outlandish' with no logical reason for doing so, and instead criticised the person who has shared them. So please, for the umpteenth time, why have said the views of respected subject experts are nonsense and outlandish? Once I understand why, I promise not to mention it again here. 2A04:4A43:407F:E67F:0:0:45E:F584 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Pease see previous answers. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Insert your question here)
 * Please see previous answers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Asks ‘why did you use the words ‘nonsense’ and ‘outlandish’ to justify removing an edit of a new, secondary reference, written by a highly-respected journalist, independently published (nationally) and quoting a world-renowned subject expert?


 * ( posts answer that avoids answering the question directly and refers to an old argument/reverts to WP:LAWYERING)


 * Asks ‘why did you use the words ‘nonsense’ and ‘outlandish’ to justify removing an edit of a new, secondary reference, written by a highly-respected journalist, independently published (nationally) and quoting a world-renowned subject expert? 2A04:4A43:417F:3D00:0:0:555:5C14 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A question
Sorry to bother you, but I’ve noticed what’s been happening on Merrill (company) regarding the actions of Hedgehog officer and Burcal2001. After examining the actions of these users, I was wondering if I should report this as edit warring on the noticeboard. Normally, I would just report this now, but since Hedgehog officer is already reported here, I wanted to get the opinion of an experienced editor first.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  22:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, they have been reported to Admin noticeboard, and I can't see any point in reporting them on a different page as well and expecting a second administrator to go through their edits as well.. they will be blocked soon enough. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you can both fuck right off. I'll be back with socks in no time. Hedgehog officer (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

And I'll be back with an investigation in no time. Shiny edit bonjour. 22:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s what I kind of figured, but I just wanted to check and make sure. Anyways, thanks for the advice!  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  22:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden's title
Hi, If you think we need to use a title for the Attempts to overturn... timeframe, as of November 6-7 all WP:RS's called him president-elect. The main article '2020 United States presidential election' uses 'former vice president.' In my 14 years on WP, we have always changed the title when it was called by the major media outlets. Please let me know what you think. Best, IP75 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience, we call people what they were at the time we are talking about. we would not refer to Trump as "former president" (which he is now) when talking about things he did when in office. Similarly we should not refer to Biden as president or president-elect when discussing events before he won the election. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In this situation because we use what RS's called him at the time which was president-elect. The article title Attempts to overturn indicates he won the election. Best, IP75 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Castle of Rivoli edit
Hi there Why did you undo my edit of Castello di Rivoli? I am a member of staff of the Museum and I am accurately updating the section about the Museum within the Castle di Rivoli page. Please let me know if I am not following any guidelines, I am new to editing on Wiki. I would like to go back to the edits I had made. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaBottai (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, The first problem with your edit was the flooding of external links in the openiong paragraphs. Wikipedia has a precise style which does not drop external links into the body of articles - you would be best off reading this guideline on links to avoid (coupled with this one which shows how to quote external sources). Secondly though, all articles should be neutral in tone, and anyone with a close connection with the subject of an article is strongly discouraged from editing. Of course that mainly affects commercial entities, and celebratories' fans/spokesmen who tend to gush about their wonderful product or star, not such a problem with educational bodies, but anything added MUST be supported by properly cited, independant sources. Again the ,main problem of linking with your own website is that your site will tend to use promotional language - wonderful gardens, award-winning tearooms, dedicated and knowledgeable staff and so on, while Wikipedia demands less colourful language. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok understood - thank you - will take this into account in the future StellaBottai (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard Barnett
Your comment on Gravette AK, that Richard Barnett is “not notable” is at odds with Wiki policy on this matter. Please see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Indeed, at present, Richard Barnett is not just Notable, but the single most notable person from this city. Please restore the previous edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.217.155 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing here. perhaps i could ask you to read Famous Residents where the criteria for adding people to lists of famous residents is listed. The first item is that that only people with Wikipedia articles should be added. If you feel that Barnett warrents an article, then you will need to create it first. thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of "non-constructive" edit
How was my edit non-constructive? I gave the reason for it while editing. The edit improved the flow of the sentences (as opposed to having multiple very short unrelated sentences back to back) and made the lead better summarise the content of the article. It was very clearly a constructive edit. Awoma (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:Undue. previous text was neutral and perfectly fine. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The text I changed it to was equally neutral - it was for the most part the exact same text, only I made it flow better, and also summarised Linehan's media appearances and comments, which are covered at length in the article. The lead should flow well and summarise the body. My version did both, and you have reverted it to a version which does neither. Awoma (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your text is weighted. You called him and anti trans activist, as opposed to a writer who has made anti trans-activist comments, which the long standing text does. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The long standing text says "Linehan is an anti-transgender activist." Awoma (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's OK then, the current text already covers it. so no need to alter it then IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is really poor. You are hopping from one justification to another with apparently little regard for the truth of what you're saying. The need to change the lead comes from the fact that the lead does not currently flow well, and does not currently summarise the content of the body. My wording is just as neutral as the current one, and is identical to the current wording at the point where you claim it is "weighted." I think your reversion was made in error, and your attempted justifications of it are based on things which just aren't true. Awoma (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit is heavily biased, stressing his anti trans activivism, and is not NPOV, and breaches WP:Undue as i have pointed out. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claim that it was biased, not NPOV, etc. was based on the idea that I called Linehan an "anti-trans activist" and the current wording does not. But this is just not true. The current wording says "Linehan is an anti-trans activist". How is my wording biased, not NPOV, and so on, when it is the exact same wording used currently? The only difference is I made the sentences flow better, adding the conjunctive "and" twice. Awoma (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference is that you have chosen to emphasise his "bad point" by making it the first thing a reader sees, clearly intended to show him in a bad light. That is not neutral and goes against policy IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another attempted justification, and yet again it's just not true. I did no such thing. My ordering in the lead matched exactly the ordering in the article, and the ordering in the lead as it currently stands. What's more, the current version has far more content related to controversy around Linehan than my version had! I think you're being ridiculous - all your attempted justifications are based on falsehoods, and instead of admitting a mistake which everyone makes you are doubling down on a decision which was obviously made in error. Awoma (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Runtime for Cleopatra (1963 film)
Please note that I checked the source provided for the runtime for Cleopatra (1963 film), and it appears that the IP range that was editing the runtime was inserting the time consistent with the source. I've been on the side of such edits myself; just wanted you to be aware. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop excusing murder
Rekia Boyd was murdered and i dont care what any jury says. They are single people who often expose their racism, why are you hellbent on trusting them instead of the truth? It is beyond racist. Rekia was murderd, the story is literally known everywhere and it doesnt take a jury to know that its cold blooded murder. Call it what it is instead of the ridiculous dody sentence "fatally shot".
 * and wikipedia does not care what you (or I) think, we go by published record, and the published record is "Not Guilty". IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * why does it matter? Who cares about fake wikipedia policy they wont bomb you for doing the right thing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma x irelia (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't care about Wikipedia policy, then why are you getting so excited by Wikipedia's contents? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously because of how accesible this page (and wikipedia articles alike) is; anyone who wants to look up more information on Rekia's murder and even just her name will come across this inacurate article first. Hiding the truth behind dodgy and pathetic wording is disrespectful to her and actively harmful to the case as it fails to state what really happened without bias towards the murderer (and what really happened is common knowledge). Not adhering to wikipedias stupid (and i doubt existent) policy of "believe the racist judge" is not harmful in ANY WAY. Ask yourself why you're hellbent on avoiding doing the right thing at all costs, even going so far as to ban me for a measly 30 or so hours, simply because i demanded that this girls wikipedia article say the truth about her murder. You're actively defending a lyncher, how are you ok with that? It is not fair to Rekia nor was that judges virdict even true, and we ALL know that. This all begs the question: Why do you want to "remain neutral" so bad? In the face of murder and police brutality. Ask yourself that. We all know its not because of wiki's useless and random policy which you seem to worship like holy scripture, as NOBODY will face consequences due to my accurate edits, which you disgustingly called vandalism.

Justice isnt vandalism
"fatally shot" is a ridiculous and evil sentence i read, time and time again, on wikipedia. It is extremely dangerous, not to mention unjust, to exonerate and excuse murder like this just because "its not neutral" who cares about neutrality in the face of this. Murder isnt neutral its cold blooded murder. She was an innocent girl shot in the head point blank, what would you call that? and by a member of a hate group no less that does it time and time again. Please dont change my edits to this page. Please stop with the "neutral" policy; change the title to what it should be.
 * If you want to argue the verdict, you need to go through the courts/legal system, not make wikiepedia your personal battleground>IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How soulless do you have to be to act this way... "wikipedia policies" mean nothing.. and it is ridiculous that you go so far as to unjustly and callously twist the truth just to remain pathetically neutral.. in the face of an innocent black woman's murder... I feel like this is more than just you following wiki guidelines as you dont seem neutral either which is questionable. Wikipedia policy means nothing, wording however means a lot. Please keep my accurate edits on her page, we wont blow up if we do the right thing and state the truth... Its a wiki article for Christ's sake and a girl was murdered, as is clearly written in the article itself, no matter what some jury, who could have very likely had racist biases, decides.
 * Wikipedia policy means nothing..outside Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, there is a policy for a reaon.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Explanation needed of recent reversions
Hi there! You need to explain the recent reverts. In what way is there vandalism?--178.138.32.26 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * original tense was correct. please stop reverting. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A launch, even if a one time event, implies an ongoing operation since then, so I think the rewording is justified by establishing a time interval to present day. The original tense would be justified if the time interval is not connected to present, after some time after launch there is a disestablishment before present.--178.138.32.26 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It launched on one day. It has operated since. Please use the tense that applies to the verb in question. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is about the present effect of the first action/verb. Thus the rewording is justified.--178.138.32.26 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it simply isn't. the original wording was correct and your edit is wrong. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2impression
 * Just saying it simply isn't is not convincing. You may have the impression that the edit (of mine) was wrong. Your claim of error is unsubstantiated.--178.138.32.26 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Why
IdreamofJeanie, did you revert the careers section of Emiway? While I created that career section. I am not committing any vandalism. 223.238.219.236 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obvious vandalism: You changed "his" to "her" twice, while leaving several "his"s untouched. While people are free to choose which pronoun they wish to use, we don't confuse readers by shuffling them about within a couple of paragraphs. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * IdreamofJeanie, But for now it is just a draft. So I don't think it is wrong to change the draft. And also, was the writing tone of my earlier contribution correct? Because I am new. 223.238.201.18 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not wrong to improve it, but the change I reverted - changing just a couple of pronouns in them middle of the article from him to her - gives a very good impersonation of a vandal, and you can hardly be surprised if someone thinks you are just mucking about. IF you are seriously trying to improve the article then I am not going to worry you again. Cheers. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you IdreamofJeanie. I'm serious about making it. But I would like you to change this to the [But I would like you to change this to the previous change previous] change. 223.238.214.247 (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous version was incorrect for the reason I have stated twice above. I will not be reinstating something I know to be incorrect. You are free to revert/edit it how you wish, just please watch for uniformity of pronouns when you do so. Thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Huhuhu
how to retrieve my drafts? I have just to delete when I'm done.


 * Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Does have that creating page just only my personal userpage just asking?


 * I've indefinitely blocked this editor, so I wouldn't bother answering if I were you. JBW (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)