User talk:Macaddct1984/Archive 6

UAE and homosexuality laws
If you’re wondering why I removed “homosexuality” from the page on “stoning”, it’s because there is no evidence that homosexuality carries the death penalty, whether by stoning or by firing squad. According to the actual UAE law, homosexuality carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment in Abu Dhabi, and 10 years imprisonment in Dubai. Therefore, I would suggest removing the text that mentions “homosexuality” on the “UAE” part in the “stoning” page. Stoning to death was only ever legal for married Muslim men or women committing adultery. Hence, stoning was legal for adultery before 2020. 94.204.124.3 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like there's a discussion happening already over on the article's talk page. As the main article is now edit protected, I would suggest posting the changes you would like to see over there, as per the procedure outlined in WP:Edit requests -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

China demographic crisis
When the birth rate is half the replacement level, it is a demographic crisis, and a google search will confirm that many sources use that term VOA and Forbes for instance.

VOA

https://www.voanews.com/a/facing-demographic-crisis-china-pushes-women-back-into-the-home-/7350689.html

Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2023/11/01/chinas-demographic-catastrophe/?sh=676d9f0850df 108.26.243.70 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

On removing my edit
Good evening. I noticed you reverted an edit I made removing a well known inaccurate piece of Albanian nationalistic propaganda in an article about Georgios Kountouriotis, a Greek admiral. I *did* explain why I removed the content, in the summary. You aren't stopping vandalism, you are inadvertently allowing ridiculous propaganda. I can explain in detail why and how the previous editor is wrong, but removing my edit in whole without dialogue is not the proper way of doing things. Please add my edit back again, this is dangerous misinformation. 2A02:587:5467:8400:C9BE:4407:A950:41BD (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all familiar with the topic, so I can't comment on the truth of the claim, but as far as editing Wikipedia, removing cited content without discussion because you claim it's "politically charged and highly inaccurate" will be reverted -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But the citations about the claims are either simply pieces of propaganda with absolutely no research done by their authors or in some cases just totally unrelated to the claim the editors who added them make. How can I do original research to disprove something with no sources proving it to be true? It is up to the editor who added them in to prove their legitimacy, which is nonexistent.You said yourself you are not familiar with the topic, so kindly let someone who is edit the article properly. In its current state, it resembles a bad piece of Albanian nationalist propaganda. 2A02:587:5467:8400:C9BE:4407:A950:41BD (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I haven't re-reverted your edit, I am but a single editor. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright then I hope I explained the edit properly then. I'll try to add the edits back in once more. 2A02:587:5467:8400:4B5:E66E:A683:7B49 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad just saw it wasn't you editing the article this time. Disregard the previous reply. 2A02:587:5467:8400:4B5:E66E:A683:7B49 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd recommend making a comment on the relevant article talk pages about your reasoning for why you're removing the cited content. Preferably using other sources that refute the claim or that demonstrate bias/propaganda from the original source. Otherwise it just looks like your removing reliable sources. --- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You undid my edits...
And now the article once again claims without clarification that the Midnight Express had a first round bye and simultaneously wrestled in the first round of the tournament. Would you please explain how this is possible? 184.55.82.40 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also if you look at reference 1 in the article, you'll see it backs up my edits and contradicts the tournament listed in the article. But why do i wven waste my time fixing articles for free when some doofus who knows nothing about the subject will just undo the edit because he didn't have time to look at sources? I'll just leave the article messed up if that's what you want. 184.55.82.40 (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * First, please don't resort to personal attacks.
 * I've reverted your edit again, because you need to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia articles should be written - imagine reading a physical encyclopedia or school textbook that said "the person or persons who made this textbook page intentionally changed..." - you would never see this. Finally, your addition still includes original research and potential bias, with phrases like "somebody in the company finally noticed the Midnight Express".
 * I don't want you to get discouraged from editing and improving articles, but please read the articles I linked so your work can stay. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear good sir, I apologize for insulting you. However, I must note that you keep deleting my edits due to minor issues in one or two of my lines while ignoring the greater sins in the rest article - sins that are greater violations of Wikipedia policies. If you would look carefully at what I'm trying to say in my edits, you'd see what I'm talking about. If you're going to say that I should meet Wikipedia's standards, than shouldn't the rest of the article too? Yet despite me proving much of the article is wrong, you keep reverting back to the prior version. In other words, you support misinformation over someone saying, "This isn't right!" even when he has the receipts.
 * But let's back up a bit because there's a good story to be had here. Indulge me, and let me share with you the tale of what this article is all about, how the subject matter became wayward, and how the article itself became wayward as a result. (It will also explain why the article in question is so hard to correct.)
 * Way back in 1988, there was a professional wrestling company called Jim Crockett Promotions. At the time, it was on its last legs. (Later in the year, it would be sold to Turner Broadcasting System. Some years after that, the wrestling portion went out of business.) Like all professional wrestling companies, it promoted scripted events with predetermined results. In 1986, 1987, and 1988, it held an annual event called the Crockett Cup, which featured 10 seeded tag teams and several other tag teams in a tournament to crown one team the winner. Basically, the way it worked was that the top ten teams sold the show, and the others were added as need be.
 * Well, by 1988, the company was a mess, and so was the tournament. Originally, it was to air on pay per view, but that plan was scuttled, and it ended up simply as a live show and a subsequent video cassette release (which only included a few matches). By the time of the tournament, the top ten teams themselves were in shambles, partly due to scripted reasons, partly due to injuries, and partly due to travel issues. The suspension of Dusty Rhodes forced his team, seeded #2, to pull out. Then Lex Luger and Barry Windham, seeded #6, split up days before the tournament. Ronnie Garvin, who was to team up with Sting in the ninth seed was injured, and a Japanese team scheduled to wrestle in the first round didn’t show. At that point, some things were reshuffled. (For example, Luger & Sting, both without partners, decided to team up together and were reseeded.)
 * Okay, so where does that leave us? Well, the way the tournament worked (theoretically) was that the top eight seeds were to get first round byes while the ninth seed, the tenth seed and remaining seeds would wrestle in the first round. If you go to the first link in the reference area of the Wikipedia page for this tournament, you'll see a list of who wrestled in the first round: https://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/usa/wcw/cup.html#3rd
 * You'll note this doesn't match what's on the Wikipedia, and there's a reason for that, but we'll get to that in a bit.
 * The bottom line is there were seven winners in the first round. Then we got to the second round, and boy was this the round from hell! To begin with, the first two winners from the first round wrestled each other. Fair enough, right? Horner & Armstrong versus the Sheepherders. Then they began introducing the teams with byes, having them wrestle the other teams that had gotten through the first round... until they realized they had messed up. There weren't enough teams from the first round to wrestle all the teams with byes! So two of the teams with first round byes (Rotunda & Steiner and Ron Simmons & Steve Williams) wrestled each other while another team (The Midnight Express) was left without an opponent. The solution? Send out the Sheepherders (who had already won in the first match of the second round) to wrestle again (in the last match of the second round) and hope no one noticed. (As the reference I included says, "As you can tell, the bracketing of the tournament was messed up.") So the Midnight Express then beat the Sheepherders, eliminating them from the tournament (?) and now there were major problems. For one, the Sheepherders, by virtue of their second round win, were supposed to move on to wrestle Sting & Lex Luger. For another, the Midnight Express (Bobby Eaton and Stan Lane), at the bottom of the tournament, were suddenly on a bracket that led to nowhere! So they reshuffled the tournament AGAIN and had the Midnight Express (Eaton/Lane) take the Sheepherder's spot at the top of the tournament brackets.
 * Fast forward to the invention of Wikipedia. Some poor Wikipedia editors trying to put together this page, and he's run into a major problem. The brackets don't make any sense! So in a moment of inspiration (and a violation of Wikipedia's policies) he ingeniously creates a fictitious set of brackets that make more sense than what really happened! The Midnight Express (Eaton/Lane) are moved into the first round, where the writer claims they wrestled Ace/Savage (as opposed to the real match, which was Ace/Savage versus Horner/Armstrong) and the writer claims the Sheepherders defeated the Cruel Connection to move into a Second Round match against the Midnight Express (Eaton/Lane) even though that's not how it really happened either. Brackets fixed! And here's the rub: I can't actually fix this because the original brackets were so broken, they wouldn't make any sense on a page! I actually applaud the writer for his ingenuity, even if his fictitious brackets come completely from his own head and aren't supported by any source whatsover, most notable the sources listed in the article!
 * That said, his solution isn't perfect as it does present some inconsistencies in the article. For example, the Midnight Express (Eaton/Lane) were seeded eighth, and thus they got a first round bye. (It even says so in the Wikipedia article. Look below EVENT and you'll see the writer list the Midnight Express as having a first round bye.) How can you have a first round bye and still wrestle in the first round? There's also a note that the Sheepherders wrestled twice in the second round (which even includes a citation). Yet the tournament brackets on the Wikipedia page show them only wrestling once in the second round!
 * So what's the solution to all this? You know what, I tried my best to correct it and failed. At this point, I've decided just to leave the article alone. Yes, the article contains a fictitious (yet ingenious) set of brackets. Yes, the article includes contradictions abound. Yes, the article could use hours of editing by a good Wikipedia editor. But I'm not the guy, and I don't think you have the interest (or knowledge or sources) either. So I guess it is what it is, and you and I will be the only ones who know the whole page is largely B.S.
 * Merry Christmas Jasonmunnstuff (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just in case you lost the original page this is about, I'm referring to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crockett_Cup_(1988) Jasonmunnstuff (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Jasonmunnstuff, we do not insert editorial notes in our articles. If you want to change anything in the article, you can discuss that on the talk page, or you can make edits in neutral, encyclopedic language, using proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope Jasonmunnstuff (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not correcting the article. As I said, I'm just leaving it wrong. It's your problem now. Jasonmunnstuff (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the spelling is indeed in error
In the article Lenny Baker, the correct spelling is vocal cords, not "chords." Any dictionary of the English language will confirm this. As an experienced editor and autopatroller of Wikipedia, you (of all people) would have verified a spelling fix before reverting it. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

JC fotos?
Hope you're well. Again, thanks for pix for Jersey City Free Public Library. Was wondering if you felt inclined, had time, and were "uptown" JC near Journal Square and or the Bergen/Lincoln Park section if you's take some pix? One for Peter Stuyvesant Monument on Sip. And for List of Art Deco architecture in New Jersey the buildings buildings along Bergen Avenue near Bergen Square. 789 (Bergen Theater, later Pix Theater), 830 (Provident Bank Headquarters, now Hudson County), 872 (Independent Order of Odd Fellows, 1920),875, 880, 885, 910, 911, 918, 920 (Hurwitz Building), 922. Hurwitz Building is the real gem! The other real Art Deco gem in 61 Gifford Avenue between the Blvd and Bergen, though there are some some fine buildings scattered thru-out the city. Greatly appreciated. Djflem (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure I'd be happy to! I'll add it to my to-do list and hope for some nice weather in the near future -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. And oops it's 61 Duncan (the big pre-war on the corner is called The Duncan, but many call it The Hague, because Hague - Hudson County Dem political machine boss for decades - lived there. By the way your Lincoln the Mystic pix are a major upgrade. Djflem (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

regarding to remove my link
i was giving my post which is full story of this movie 695 and this information is not available on Wikipedia. so im helping to people who is eacrching about the story of 695 movie.i never break any wikipedia guidlines. so can u please c recheck. Radhahlpingblogger (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit
Hi Mac, I don't understand why our edit was removed. Could you clarify? Bart Gadeyne (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Your link was removed because it didn't conform to Wikipedia's policy on external links.  - WP:LINKSTOAVOID -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You un did my Edits on The Little Rascals 1994
Can this be added in, this is what happened, this is about Alfalfa and Spanky being dressed as Ballerinas.

At the ballet rehearsal, Alfalfa And Spanky Have to Transform Into Ballerinas, so they enter the costume room and slip on a pair of elasticated, frilly knickers and a bra, a lycra pink leotard and a pair of pink tights, finally a pretty pink tutu, after they slip their feet into a pair of ballet pumps. They quickly put on a wig before making themselves look pretty by applying some makeup, Alfalfa and Spanky are very uncomfortable in their tight ballet costumes. They exit the costume room and are met by Butch and Woim, they act very girly in order to evade them. They attempt to get out of their uncomfortable ballerina costumes by entering another room but are met by a group of girls, the boys chat to the girls and pretend they are in the rehearsal, the boys are very nervous, the ballet mistress enters the room and ushers everyone on stage, the boys stand with the rest of the girls on stage as they all start to dance, Spanky puts a slimy frog in Alfalfa's tutu, Alfalfa squirms in discomfort as he struggles to dance, the rehearsal ends up in disaster and the boys run of stage, Alfalfa immediately gets out of his costume while Spanky still dressed as a girl, the ballet mistress throws both of them out, Butch and Woim is stood outside the building, Alfalfa runs off as Spanky Acts all girly to get past them, Spanky looses his wig and runs off, he manages to loose the bullies by running into a boys club, but is thrown out as he is dressed as a girl. Alfalfa meanwhile is found by the bullies and they chase him into a hotel and Alfalfa runs through the corridors and manages the loose Butch and Woim before jumping into a swimming pool, but ends up loosing his knickers and is laughted at by Darla and Waldo who are enjoying drinks in the hot tub. Oliver Savell (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please look though WP:Edit Requests - the appropriate process to make an edit request is on the talk page Talk:The Little Rascals (film). Before doing that, you need to famliarize yourself with WP:NOTPLOT and MOS:PLOT, then perhaps go through Edit Request Wizard -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me,
 * the context I have added is a good summary of the plot in the film, that is what happened. If you want you could even change some bits and pieces that you feel are accurate, If I am honest I may have wrote some things to suit myself so I could share my experience, as when I was younger myself and my friend had the same experience as Spanky and Alfalfa, I had to dress up as a ballerina and do a ballet rehearsal with a group of girls, we both looked ridiculous, I can tell you it is very uncomfortable to wear girls clothes, when we were on stage, my friend took my wig off me and everyone was staring at me and bursted out laughing, it was a very embarrassing moment for me, all my friends and everyone I knew was there,
 * hopefully you will not find my experience too funny.
 * let me know what you think about the comments I wrote in the plot, just some feedback please. Oliver Savell (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In Macaddct1984's defense, I'd like to remind you that your "personal experiences" mean nothing to the article, and taking that information to the talk page is in serious violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. 100.8.243.246 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was only sharing my experience about the time I had to dress up as a girl, I know you that you are probably having a good laugh about that, it was very uncomfortable having to wear a pink lycra leotard, tights and a pink tutu.
 * I would like to have my article posted without it being deleted everytime I post it. I understand it is a personal experience, but I only posted it as I had the same experience as Spanky and Alfalfa had. Oliver Savell (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not help the article at all. It has to stay deleted, regardless of your "experiences" (we see no evidence, hence why we're not laughing). WP:NOTAFORUM exists for a reason. 100.8.243.246 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Spanky and Alfalfa had to dress up as Ballerinas and pretended to be girls in the Ballet Rehearsal, so did I and and that is why I posted the article in the first place so that I could let people know about my experience. Oliver Savell (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can make your case for why your actions don't constitute disruptive editing over on your ANI, if you wish -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My article is not disruptive, I shouldn't have to make a case, please can I have your honest opinion/comments on my experience that I wrote. Oliver Savell (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Our opinions mean nothing, because your "experience" is meaningless to the article and forbidden in the talk page. We know disruptive edits when we see them, especially when you repeat the offense. 100.8.243.246 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith on my part.
I'm really interested in the history of the FDNY, and this interest has led me into an interest in the volunteer fire department that existed previous to 1865. There's only a brief mention of that in the New York City Fire Department article, and I can't find an article on the volunteer department, so in good faith I made a mention of it. My edit would've been better added to an article on the volunteer department. Maybe I'll start one someday. Anyway, no offense taken! Secret Egypt 2 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries! It's not entirely irrelevant, but it may be more appropriate to mention in the (pre)history section of the article, citing the non-fiction book. Also, the 1865–1898 section is entirely unsourced, if you want to work on improving that. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha! Those sound like some things I'll enjoy doing when I can spare more than a moment.  I appreciate your feedback and hints. Secret Egypt 2 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)