User talk:Quandolaluna

 Hi Quandolaluna, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read theIntroduction and check the Teahouse to contact Wikipedians who are available for assistance, or even for a chat. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

Help me!
How do I explain in further detail why I want the Niall Ferguson (Harvard professor) "Trump Election" section to remain? Professor Ferguson held himself out as an authority -- indeed, THE authority-- on the 2016  U.S. Presidential election. Example, "If you bother to read some of the serious analysis of Trump’s support, you realize that it’s a very fragile thing and highly unlikely to deliver what he needs in the crucial first phase of the primaries. ... By the time we get to March-April, it’s all over. I think there’s going to be a wonderful catharsis, I’m really looking forward to it: Trump’s humiliation. Bring it on.” Did you read that?  He actually asks if we bothered "to read some of the serious analysis of Trump’s support".  Hence, he is proclaiming expertise since he's read all that serious analysis.  So confident was he about his prediction that Trump would suffer "humiliation" [again, his word]  that in early 2016, Professor Ferguson even chortled, "Bring it on!" Ok, I'm bringing it on.  You cannot urge folks to "bring it on" and then object when your confident predictions are proven wrong.   He was not just wrong but so wildly wrong it calls into question his entire judgment. Elsewhere in the article on Prof. Ferguson it is deemed appropriate to cite his views on the Iraq war and other contemporary topics, e.g. economics and the tax code. Likewise, his views of the 2016 election should be cited, too. Painful as it is, when a Harvard professor goes to great lengths on television to denigrate the chances of the winning candidate, it deserves to be noted. One cannot just pick and choose which predictions are to be remembered. In the words of Professor Ferguson, "bring it on." Well, it has been brought.

Quandolaluna (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

, It may be more beneficial for you to post this in the article in question's talk page. Nordic  Nightfury  12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. The article's talk page is the best place to discuss with other editors how much weight should be afforded to particular topics, especially in a biography about a living person.  At the talk page, you'll reach editors who have an interest in that article.  Cheers, Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 14:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Wrong Man, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Dubious – discuss


A tag has been placed on Template:Dubious – discuss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Wrong Man. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Tuesday Weld. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Justeditingtoday -- I have gone to the dispute resolution page and I hereby am giving you notice. Go to that page.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:The Wrong Man were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. RA 0808 talkcontribs 16:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Wrong Man. BigDwiki (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How to challenge the Tuesday Weld information
Please see my close to your request at DRN, if you've not done so already. What I'm about to say here presumes that you already know what I've said there.

I'm going to presume, also, that you're not just one of those editors who blows into Wikipedia trying to insert or remove information "just because" and when they discover that "just because" isn't good enough gives up and goes away because to do what they really want to do involves more effort than they care to expend. In this case, "just because" you can look at the film and come to a different conclusion isn't good enough under Wikipedia policies, as I've explained in my DRN close. That does not mean, however, that the information that you believe to be inappropriate is necessarily engraved in stone, never to be subject to challenge. There are three basic ways to attack existing information attributed to sources:
 * Attack the sources as not being reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. For example, if IMDB is the only source, IMDB is generally not generally considered to be a reliable source.
 * Attack the sources as not supporting the material they are cited to support. For example, if the information in an article about acrylic paint says that "the main paint used in the Morecroft's 'Apple' painting was red acrylic" but the source cited merely says that the main color in the painting was red, without saying anything about whether or not it was acrylic, then that source is only good for what it says and what it says may be irrelevant (or of minor importance) to that article.
 * Come up with reliable sources of your own which contradict the sources used in the article, in which case it's usually the right thing to do to include both sources in the article and describe the conflict.

In the first two cases, if all the existing sources for the information are disqualified (and if you get in a stalemate over that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard can help), then the information should be removed from the article after giving the editors who support it a reasonable chance to find new sources (see WP:BURDEN for a more thorough discussion of that situation).

Sometimes, however, the sources are reliable and do support the information and there are no contradictory reliable sources. In that situation, about all you can do is to note your concern on the article talk page, as you have done, and leave it to be addressed in the future if things change. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Landis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Neal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/John_Landis check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/John_Landis?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)