User talk:RunnyAmiga/Archive 3

List of English terms of venery, by animal
Well, RunnyAmiga, you are certainly taking my edits completely the wrong way. I was cutting and pasting and by your second message I understood that there is to be no advertising and promoting of one's work in Wikipedia.org. If you paid attention in my last edit, I did not even post a reference at all. I simply inserted two words: "tarantulas" and "campaign" into the table. I invented this animal collective term and used it in one of my stories, as there is no animal collective for "tarantulas" in existence anywhere. For spiders, the collective is "clutter", but this animal collective is not appropriate for a mass movement of tarantulas. Check your attitude a bit. I do mine, all the time. I do not mean to be disruptive at all. I simply need help with the proper way to edit and make posts. You could be more helpful, and less aggressive. By the way, do you know of an animal collective name for tarantulas moving en masse? Please be patient with me, as I'm very new at editing and making posts using Wiki markup. Cheers and all the best to you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelmartinsen (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "If you paid attention in my last edit, I did not even post a reference at all." Your edit would have been the only one of dozens of listings at that article that wasn't sourced.
 * "By the way, do you know of an animal collective name for tarantulas moving en masse?" Tarantulas are spiders and according to the two sources, the terms "clutter" and "cluster" cover spiders. I couldn't find anything at those sources saying that tarantulas are exceptions. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL
Pretty sure that User:$3Th123456789 is the same "editor" as User:71.202.242.49 ;-) ... richi (hello) 19:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, right? But wait. What if they're not? Oh, no. If those are two different people editing independently, then Seth Jones is actually really important and we're both in a lot of trouble. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we had the same thought on AIV! I removed your duplicate entry, I posted mine about a minute earlier. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, you removed it? I just tried to remove it. What the heck, people. I'm getting badly, badly dunked on by everybody right now. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the dupe when I saw you posted it, then the bot did something with it, then you posted again, then Bishonen blocked the user and it was removed by the maintenance bot. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the dupe when I saw you posted it, then the bot did something with it, then you posted again, then Bishonen blocked the user and it was removed by the maintenance bot. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

75.89.27.45
Please do not bait the IP. Thanks. Dustin ( talk ) 05:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't know, WP:AIV reports are awfully difficult to do from a phone. And given the Westboro Baptist remarks they've made, nah. I'll do as I please. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 05:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That kind of editing is not constructive. I never said that the aforementioned IP's edits were okay. All I'm doing is suggesting that you don't troll the vandal. This essay is relevant. I also already reported the user as a sockpuppet. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll keep that in mind if I ever wonder if baiting vandals is constructive. Or if I ever decide to care about constructively interacting with human filth. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 05:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not address you like you are six. I just made a straightforward request, and you took it badly. You have misunderstood my intent. Edits of the sort made by that IP are absolutely unacceptable, don't get me wrong. It's just generally a bad idea to troll vandals of any sort, regardless of the type of vandalism. In hindsight, I see how the above post may have come off as a command or some other sort of malicious comment, but I assure you I did not post the above with any malicious intent. Perhaps I will take this instance to mind in the future when speaking to other users so as to avoid unintentionally coming off badly. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I strongly believe that baiting vandals is, in fact, productive. They're going to attack sonewhere. I'd rather they attack me than actual content while I wait for the block. I guess I'll try an ANI report because SPI has a backlog a mile long. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 05:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. I just want you to know that condescension was never my intent. I got lazy on my above comment, and instead of saying something like "While that IP has clearly shown no love for Wikipedia, it is considered bad practice by a number of editors to troll vandals for a reasons which can be seen here, here, etc., etc.", I just made that really quick comment above. You still would have disagreed with me, but at least we wouldn't have had that misunderstanding earlier regarding my tone. On the Internet, you can't hear someone's voice, so I suppose such issues are to be expected. That's really all I've go to say about this. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverted changes on List of Empires
Excuse me but what I said isn't original research. I'd advise you to check the sources I gathered. The source used by TomoaDompa is wrong and contradicts not only history but Wikipedia itself! Ppteles (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I mentioned two possibilities, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and you forgot to address one. I thought it was far, far more likely you'd attempted to insert SYNTH violations, and I feel this was confirmed when I combed through your sources and couldn't find any of the numbers you added to that article. But I might have missed something. Where in those sources is the text verifying your changes? RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 00:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm on making myself understood. The source used by TompaDomp is flawed as it simply has no backing supporting its claims! And the error is so basic it's actually quite difficult to explain! It's like if you said 2+2=3 based on a source you found online! You only have to check the articles on Wikipedia concerning the Portuguese empire and Brazilian territorial expansion to understand by 1750 ( treaty of Madrid) Portugal controlled the territorial extent that was later to be known as the Brazilians empire! It's the same territory so there's a factual flaw in the article when it claims that the Brazilian Empire is twice as large as the Portuguese one! It's like saying Texas is bigger than the USA! if I find one source on the internet with factual mistakes does that make it the Bible of sources? It's factually wrong! The author of that article made a mistake! In regards to my sources - the first source is a resume of portugal's territorial expansion and the expand one another with slides! But just check Wikipedia articles Treaty of Madrid and Brazilian trrritorial expansion! I'm not making this up but clearly the author of that article was!Ppteles (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added more sources. Regards.Ppteles (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done going through source after source after source when you're telling me that you don't have anything showing the numbers you've added to that article. I've spent an astounding amount of effort looking for the numbers you've added and they're not in those sources.


 * "You only have to check the articles on Wikipedia concerning the Portuguese empire and Brazilian territorial expansion to understand by 1750 ( treaty of Madrid) Portugal controlled the territorial extent that was later to be known as the Brazilians empire!" This is really something. You're proudly declaring that you are editing this website in deliberate violation of its policies.


 * You can't add information without a source. You need a reliable source explicitly stating what you're adding. Combining sources to reach an unsourced conclusion is not allowed. For the love of God, please, please read WP:SYNTH. I understand this is complicated but I can't let you break the rules because either you don't understand them or you don't respect them. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 02:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're the one failing to understand, I am not using source after source with wild material just to back up this claim. This source: https://cdv.dei.uc.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cm10a.pdf contains the explanation I have been trying to tell you. This youtube video is a result of that paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOA8AfeHM4 each ball represent the empires at their extents in history. You can see what I mean there as well. This one http://digilander.libero.it/facnascimento/Geografy.html provides a map where the territory extent of Brazil (before and after independence is shown). The value 10.4 is taken from this source: http://www.justtheflight.co.uk/blog/35-mapping-the-empires-of-history.htmlPpteles (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SYNTH? RunnyAmiga ※  talk 03:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * exacly what I am trying to say to you. The sources provided EXPLICITLY state the content that was added. Ppteles (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added some comments in the Talk page of the article. I just want you to understand that the paper contains an ERROR, and therefore is unsuitable as source material
 * This is the wrong place for a discussion like this. Given the ongoing discussion at the article's talk, and given the fact that my expertise on this is nonexistent compared to TompaDompa and, I guess, you, I don't have anything else to add. I'm going to seal this thread up in a bit. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dominican Spanish
Hi RunnyAmiga, I'm entirely new to editing Wikipedia, so please give a newbie some helpful guidance. My changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Spanish were limited to the vocabulary list which I alphabetized and extended. It is intended for the English speaker to quickly find a word in use, but perhaps not fully understood. As I continue to learn the dialect, I'd like to extend the list as the article is incomplete. If you'd like me to go away, I can certainly keep a private list on a blog somewhere. Kurtwguenther (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Computer Virus Article Reversion
"Ought to be discussed first, especially if the source uses the term "computer virus." I don't know if it does and I bet you don't either"

Why does the source matter? The fact is, the term "e-mail virus" is a misnomer. It is either a worm, a virus, or a hybrid thereof. The behavior described in the section I had removed was mostly that of a hybrid, though worm behaviors were also incorrectly mentioned. While I do believe that discussion of hybrids has a place on that article, such discussion should explain the distinction and link to the Computer Worm article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.153.64 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The source matters because if we have a reliable source, we can make the claim. I know this is weird and they're moving away from terminology like this but it still holds: it matters more if the source is reliable than it does if the source is right. You can't be like, "That source is reliable but wrong" because (and again: I know this is weird) not being accurate isn't enough to get rid of it. But there's absolutely a way you can win the battle over reliable, inaccurate sources. Ready?


 * If you have a good source saying that the term "e-mail virus" makes no sense, we can put it in there and work towards mitigating the inaccurate language. If you get a few sources, that might be enough to say, "Yeah, here's all these experts saying that the phrase isn't accurate, let's stop using that book as a source and use this article from Wired and that paper by some genius at Harvard and this tweet from Mike Godwin and so on." (And a lot of editors, myself included, love overruling paper sources that aren't available online. I want to read that stuff. I don't want to just trust that it's there, you know?) Collect a little pile of good sources and we can replace the book and rewrite the text. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 02:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 October
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) 00:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Franklin Castle page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=743759953 your edit] caused a cite 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%2F743759953%7CFranklin Castle%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * No, ReferenceBot, thank you. It looks fixed now. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 01:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User Howiebraunstein
Hi RunnyAmiga. I noticed that you have tried to help in the past, so I thought I would seek your help in trying to get this editor understand his problem edits. Despite many warnings, he continues to add unsourced information and personal opinions. I don't know if the problem is lack of competence or simply vandalism. But it's quickly getting to the point that a sanction may have to be imposed. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My interactions with him have been, if I recall, one-sided; he didn't seem like much of a presence at places like WP:ANI or talk pages and I didn't feel comfortable getting pushy since he seems like a younger editor. But here's a message from August by User:Mrschimpf calling Howiebraunstein "an editor that has improved from being problematic to being a credit to the project." I pinged him since he almost certainly has more to add to this than me. While we wait for that, I'll see if I can contribute anything more than this buck-passing I'm admittedly doing. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although we might be really out of luck. I'm honestly shocked: he's got 818 edits and every single one is to article space. He's never edited anywhere else. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He makes no attempt to communicate with other editors; no edit summaries or talk page comments. That's usually a very bad sign. Sundayclose (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed all 818 edits and while I definitely defer to Mrschimpf that he was able to transition from a bad editor to a good one, I have no idea how, where, or when that process took place. You seem reluctant to report him, and that's totally understandable, but you know what? Everybody who's ever had the hammer get dropped on them had a nice clean block log at some point.


 * That said, he usually edits in daily bursts; he'll do a half-dozen edits in an hour and be done for the day, or for several days. And since he hasn't edited in over five hours, he's probably done until tomorrow at least. So I think we should wait either for Mrschimpf to chime in or for Howie to edit in violation of that first-and-only warning you left him. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 17:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just poking my nose in here, uninvited: I took a look at his recent edits and undid a couple that were unsourced. Definitely a mixed bag, IMHO. /cc ... richi (hello) 20:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well he made no response to my request for discussion on his talk page, and then made another unsourced edit. So next time I'm taking it to ANI. Thanks for discussing. Ping . Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I bet you didn't think I'd come here to hit you with a big ol' wall of text. Heh. You'll know better soon:


 * You're obviously talking about his edits to American Housewife. Your revert's explanation was "unsourced" and that's you basically begging the crowd at ANI to dogpile you. Know how?


 * WP:OBVIOUS might apply per your revert of Howie's change of "Nixon" to "Mixon" since her name is, in fact, spelled with an "M." And even if not, it's verified by sources 3 through 7.


 * "Unsourced" might not have been an appropriate explanation of reverting his change of the Tomatometer score from 61% to 65%, since it could have been 65% when he edited but a newer, negative review could have brought it down to 61%.


 * They love to ignore the forest for the trees at ANI. They get pissy as the day is long if they think you're bringing minor issues to something as massively important as that noticeboard. And I'm saying this as someone who, by and large, thinks ANI does a good job of handling stuff.


 * That said, I think you only meant to revert his claim that the critical consensus came "with most praising Katy Mixon's performance." To you, that's unsourced and unacceptable. To me, well, I don't know. I'm going to copypaste straight from the likely source: "American Housewife is boosted by a strong and enjoyable lead performance by Katy Mixon..." The idea behind RT establishing what it calls its "critics consensus" is, more or less, "this is what most critics are saying." Right?


 * So, re-read Howie's text, then re-read the quote from RT, bearing in mind that it's what a reliable source is claiming that most critics are saying. I think his text was sourced. You're free to disagree. I can totally see where you're coming from, to-may-to to-mah-to. But that there's a gray area here at all is giving me pause. I really believe that if you take him to ANI and use these sorts of issues as evidence that he's here to either deliberately crap everything up or he's editing despite the fact that he's wildly incompetent, the crowd over there will nuke you from orbit. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 02:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem with the "wall of text". You make a good point about ANI. I'll make sure if I make a report that it's for something that is clearer. The biggest problem as I see it is not so much adding unsourced information (although that has been a problem), but his refusal to communicate with either an edit summary or a talk page comment. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I'll say it again: I was completely mystified when I saw his editing stats. I honestly think the best reaction is revert anything and everything he does that you don't think is appropriate. Include a nice edit summary, yada yada, but never hesitate to revert him. He'll never post a cranky note at your talk, he'll never restore his work, and he'll never escalate the dispute anywhere. To me, that works best because by retaining the good stuff he does (and he does do good stuff) and wiping the bad stuff on sight, you're turning his refusal to communicate into a negative for him. He must agree with you on reverts, because if he didn't, he'd speak up. Right? RunnyAmiga ※  talk 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Love & Hip Hop
I wasn't the one who did, an anonymous user did and I just fixed the format, I didn't know how to revert it and it's hard when anonymous users keep vandalizing and editing Zhyboo (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly needs to happen there? You removed a bunch of links from templates and in the article's actual text, I couldn't see a difference. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 20:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh you mean what was I doing to the table for the love and hip hop franchise, I talked to Pinchofhope and told him that's it's a good idea to change supporting back to recurring, so thats why I did it, so could you revert back to recurring, please? Zhyboo (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 20:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't intending to mess up The templates, by the way Zhyboo (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Its not a good idea and I don't support it. Supporting works best and thats what the production team at VH1 actually call those cast members (rather than recurring). He's just randomly decided to change it and is trying to start a edit war. Pinchofhope (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To me, "recurring" means "appearing every now and then" while "supporting" is more actorly, if you will. (And I probably think that because of the Oscars.) Say what you want about reality TV shows but they're supposed to be nonfiction. And I don't really know why producers' terminology is enough reason to go one way or the other. Wouldn't what they're saying have an automatic conflict of interest? RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "recurring" isn't a fictional term, the definition of recurring is to "appear 'frequently' from time to time" they're called "recurring characters" in fiction and "recurring cast members" in reality shows, but i agree the term supporting is more well fit, and if anonymous users vandalize the categories again, I'll get Kelege to protect it, She knows how to. Zhyboo (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim Prentice
Hi RunnyAmiga,

I'm a freelance journalist relatively new to editing Wikipedia. Wondering if you have information about the rumoured death of Jim Prentice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmorley00 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got a browser window open to a constantly-updating Twitter search for "Jim Prentice" and right now, the most ironclad information is this. People are wanting to edit his article here but I'm thinking this is a bit borderline. (That said, I'm also thinking it's looking more and more likely that he was killed.) RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hesitant on that news site mostly because I'd never heard of it and it was odd for a lower-visibility outlet to be able to confirm huge news before the bigger outlets got it. Either way, the Toronto Star is definitely reliable and they just updated their article on the crash to confirm that Prentice has died. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AIV edit question
Hi, just had a quick question for you. You just added Moonman88 to AIV for "anti-semitic" edits, however the edit I saw was to add 3 sets of parenthesis to names in an article. Vandalism for sure, but how is that anti-semitic (or am I just completely missing something)? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're completely missing something. And that's to your infinite credit because I wish I didn't know and you're going to wish you didn't either. So yeah, sorry for this. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh....can this election cycle be over now please? But thanks for the follow up, something to keep in mind. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

La Lumiere
FYI, the above referenced page has less than 30 people that watch it. Hyperbole is generally not productive. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're serious; there's no way you thought that saying "hyperbole is generally not productive" was a productive way of reducing hyperbole. And besides, the admin I reverted thanked me for the edit so I think I'm good doing things my way. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 21:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AIV
Curses! I could have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling IPs and that mangy dog! RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're not taking that sort of thing as a badge of honor you're doing Wikipedia wrong. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a good chuckle over it, that's for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

AIV
Curses! I could have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling IPs and that mangy dog! RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're not taking that sort of thing as a badge of honor you're doing Wikipedia wrong. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a good chuckle over it, that's for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Word demagogue
With regard to demagogue, since anyone with eyes and ears currently living in the United States knows the statement to be true, why don't you improve the article by adding a source rather than reduce the information content? I didn't find a web link, only seeing it in television news, but as it's obvious that it exists, why not you make it better instead of worse? 68.184.205.133 (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read #2 at WP:NOTNEWS for why you're the latest in a long, long line of people who I've prevented from getting Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump (or both) listed there. That article becomes markedly worse when people try to add either person. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 13:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

WTF with Ronald?
It wasn't vandalism. I've added info about a popular meme. I was asked for refs, I've given them. On the first ref one can see a brief explanation of the subj. On another ones its relation to Microsoft and Ronald can be seen. Significance is self-evident from the its popularity and the images from Google Search is the sign of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.17.89 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see.


 * 1) Your sources are all either Google searches or some sketchy Russian website I won't be clicking. I have no idea if any of your sources are reliable but since it's about a Ronald McDonald meme, I'm pretty confident they aren't.
 * 2) The use of the word "sperm" in close proximity to a character meant to entertain children is completely fucking disgusting.
 * 3) And to call it like it is, nobody really cares about Ronald McDonald as some "unofficial mascot." If it's unofficial, it's likely not important.
 * For that matter, don't think I haven't noticed that you waited until you were given a last warning to start defending your edit. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

David Petraeus
RunnyAmiga. Your references do not say that linkedin or self published sources are not acceptable. It says generally. In this case because there is a published source from the user AND the actual institution; it should be acceptable. I will leave it to you to decide if you want to put it back after researching it yourself. Realize this is an article which incorrectly described political affiliation for over 15 years. Validity on wikipedia isn't always what it should be.

I absolutely appreciate your help and attention.


 * WP:RSSELF says we can't use "personal pages on social networking sites" which exactly describes Petraeus's LI page, whether or not he wrote it himself. #5 at WP:PROMO says Wikipedia isn't to be used for "Advertising, marketing or public relations," which is what the link to the institution's website is. That page is a press release, and not only are press releases not good sources for what to include, they're (in a way) good resources for what not to include since if what they were saying were important, we wouldn't need to disseminate a press release to support it. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur
Hello, I would like to make the change to Brodeur's page, because he is a dual citizen of Canada and America. Its a known fact to, you can look it up, and it was stated by the official NHL and official ESPN sites a couple years back. Its important to stat that he is both an American and Canadian citizen. He was born in Canada and now lives in the United States as an official citizen. On that same page, under personal life, it states that Brodeur is an official U.S. citizen, so it should be changed in his bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.178.166 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea if this information is appropriate for the opening paragraph or not. The issue I had is that you were inserting information without a source. And we still don't have a good source, since the claim is backed up by a story in the trash tabloid New York Post. I'll use it for the text you added and, since I couldn't find the ESPN story you mentioned, I'll look for a source that isn't junk. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodney Anderson (Texas Politician)
I just spent considerable time introducing some important detail regarding this politician's entry in Wikipedia. Citations were provided. Please let me know how I might fix them to better meet your requirements and your impressions of them. Thank you RunnyAmiga! TXDemocrat (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You "introduc[ed] some important detail?" No, you absolutely did not. You "spent considerable time" compiling tons and tons of opposition research and you slathered it all over an article with little regard for several policies and guidelines, including WP:READABILITY, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and most importantly, WP:NPOV. I won't ask you if you're here to sincerely improve that article because you're not. You're here to grind a political axe, and since we try to be fair, we don't want editors who are motivated like that. If I'm wrong, prove it: create the article for his upcoming opponent, Terry Meza, then add reams of negative oppo research to it. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @RunnyAmiga My apologies for violating policies. The article as written is very biased in that it doesn't include legislation that impacted his house district in dangerous ways. I will try again with more moderation. Thank you. I am here to provide more accuracy for the article. I can understand why you might think that I am "grinding a political axe" simply because of my user name. His opponent is not a member of our community and has never served in the Texas legislature so I prefer to add details about our neighbor. But I do see your point. I will start over. TXDemocrat (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My comment
There's no tone on the internet so let me preface this by saying this is a fun friendly comment. I laughed very hard to your reply to my Crispus Attucks. Seriously, we may disagree on Ken Bone but you found a funny way to do so while having some personality and keeping it light without being personal. I wish more wikipedians were like you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Troy Southgate IP
Just to say I've blocked the IP, for a year all they've done is spammed Southgate and his Black Front Press. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this block 100%. And thank you for this note. I'd actually forgotten how sensitive that article is and this will help me remember to be ready if this person reappears under a different identity.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 18:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Double Dragon
I could have sworn that there's some sort of guideline somewhere that states bypassing redirects that are R from unnecessary disambiguations is unnecessary and could potentially create more work for editors in the event that the term's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC changes ... but I'm not in any mood to press the matter, nor in any mood to find what I'm talking about since I just tried to look for it and couldn't find anything. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My guess was that you're thinking of WP:NOTBROKE but I'm not positive that I'm right. Was that it?  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like what I was looking for. I mean, such of an example as the situation with the edit in Double Dragon isn't referenced there, but it is only one edit, and I'm not certain if there ever will be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC change, so as far as I'm concerned, it is what it is. Steel1943  (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Troy Southgate IP
Just to say I've blocked the IP, for a year all they've done is spammed Southgate and his Black Front Press. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this block 100%. And thank you for this note. I'd actually forgotten how sensitive that article is and this will help me remember to be ready if this person reappears under a different identity.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 18:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Double Dragon
I could have sworn that there's some sort of guideline somewhere that states bypassing redirects that are R from unnecessary disambiguations is unnecessary and could potentially create more work for editors in the event that the term's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC changes ... but I'm not in any mood to press the matter, nor in any mood to find what I'm talking about since I just tried to look for it and couldn't find anything. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My guess was that you're thinking of WP:NOTBROKE but I'm not positive that I'm right. Was that it?  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like what I was looking for. I mean, such of an example as the situation with the edit in Double Dragon isn't referenced there, but it is only one edit, and I'm not certain if there ever will be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC change, so as far as I'm concerned, it is what it is. Steel1943  (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Love and hip hip
Those anonymous users just won't stop bothering things!! I just checked and he keeps adding them back to he domestic installments and other anonymous be users keep messing up the other pages with nonsense!! We need to figure out how to protect these pages from anonymous users, because they keep adding unnecessary and false details Zhyboo (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

He still keeps adding the same false information over and over, I saw your warning message to him but he won't listen, just blocked him! And try to protect the lhh pages Zhyboo (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reported Love & Hip Hop at WP:RFPP and it's been semi-protected for one week. If that person returns to cause trouble after the protection expires, I can make another report with a link to this thread; your messages here would show that the article needs to be protected for much longer. Are there other pages getting attacked?  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, love and hip hop Atlanta, love and hip hop new York and love and hip hop Hollywood, the same user you just wanted a fes hours ago, keeps attacking the other ones too Zhyboo (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just reported all three.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 14:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bill Murray Birthplace
I'm moving this discussion to Bill Murray's talk page since it's more about that article's content and less about me. RunnyAmiga ※  talk 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Windows 10 edit revert
Hi I'm wondering what we have to do to get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_10&type=revision&diff=745529536&oldid=745522221 reverted again?

Some users have approached me asking me about it.

Why did you revert it?

The user explained it well.

Paladox (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Athens ms has an obnoxious habit of never using the edit summary box. My revert has an edit summary reading "unexplained changes/removals", which I think pretty clearly answers your question of how to retain that edit.


 * I regularly patrol the list of articles under pending changes protection and Windows 10 is one of them. When I'm reviewing the backlog of pending edits, I revert almost every edit without a summary for the same reason. It's not my responsibility to look around for talk page posts; its the editor's responsibility to take four seconds to fill out that box. If the edits are important enough to be included, they're important enough to be summarized. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for responding, but you should not be reverting any edits because they doint use the edit box, I doint see anywhere that states an wikipediaian must use that box, you should only be reverting if the information is not credible or is spam. Paladox (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit summary box isn't mandatory and I never said it was. But just because you don't have to use it doesn't mean you shouldn't. That edit wasn't plainly, obviously helpful and combined with the empty summary box, I'm automatically skeptical. If the edit is valuable, why is it so important to you that you be allowed to do it without explaining it? RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * it's not important, but I am being asked. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting Paladox (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * But also the same applies for reverting, just because a user doesn't use that box doesn't mean you revert either. Paladox (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * One of my edits, which really needs no justification as it was a self-evident addition, was reverted. I think you may need to apply more discretion to your reverting, rather than acting blindly on principle. You are effectively deleting the work of well-meaning contributors. Nlemen (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and I've explained why. There's no good reason not to explain what you're doing. (There's also no good reason to fight this hard against explaining what you're doing.) So since I'm not going to change how I do things, why not advise User:Athens ms to start explaining their edits? Because like I said earlier, typing out a summary ought to take four seconds. RunnyAmiga ※  talk 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI
"Gunshot wound" as a cause of death is correct. As an example, the Christina Grimmie OPD summary specifically states, Christina suffered a gunshot wound to the side of her head. The entrance wound had stippling surrounding it, which indicates the bullet was fired in close range of the victim. This wound was fatal. "Gunshot" literally describes the result of firing a gun. — ATS &#128406;  talk  01:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I always think in situations like this that maybe it's me; either I'm too sensitive or I value doing things my way too much. That could be the case here. In fact, it probably is true that I'm way too ready to revert changes to Barsi's infobox. That can present a problem.


 * But when I see stuff like that, I wonder why we're getting this far into the nuts and bolts of the "cause of death" infobox parameter there. Is it worth going back and forth on the text we use to explain the tragic, terrifying end of that kid's life? I didn't revert that because it was factually incorrect. I reverted it because it was cruel and gross. That infobox, as you know better than probably anybody else, has been under attack for a long time by that vandalizing "she bore him a child" idiot who insists on edits that, whether accurate or not, are completely morbid and disgusting. Can't we just take a step back, realize that the infobox says "gunshot," and that perfectly gets across all the publicly available information on how Barsi's life ended? Anybody reading that comes away knowing what happened with no additional information, so to me, adding anything else is pointless at best and since it's to a ten-year-old murder victim's article, it's far worse than merely pointless: it's this lurid, shameless rubbernecking that, whether or not it's you-know-who doing it, has been a problem at that article for far too long.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 13:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (To as well:) I'm all too unfortunately engaged with the "she bore him" vandal, as you point out; much of that work has been to remove bloat from the infoboxes, also as you're kind enough to note. That said, when data is included within the infobox, I believe we're all bound by Wiki policies that it be accurate. In this case, it is simply incorrect to state that the result of firing a gun killed the article's subject; technically, it's the exsanguination caused by the bullet wound. See the, for one. — ATS  &#128406;  talk  19:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I want to know your thoughts, not stuff from policy or an outside link: what information is a typical reader getting from "gunshot wound" that they're not getting from "gunshot?" I don't think there is anything. What do you think? Am I wrong?


 * If we were just parsing the letters and words, I wouldn't be fighting this hard. But if this gets escalated, I'll push for "gunshot" because I sincerely believe it means the same thing as your preferred phrase, "gunshot wound," and User:AldezD's choice, "homicide by shooting," with the difference being that the latter two are creepy and lurid. You can hit me sources, policy, precedent, and whatever else but you're not convincing me that any of that overrules a basic obligation to do what's good and humane at the article of a ten-year-old girl who was murdered. So the policy I'm going with is WP:IAR, which somehow I always incorrectly thought was just a guideline. I'm also going with WP:DENY with regards to Mister Edit Filter 770. From time to time, I go back and check his additions because I want to do the right thing, and his edits are handy lists of edits that decent people shouldn't be making.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 20:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that we be correct—and that being correct improves the encyclopedia. The entire purpose of the IB is a succinct, at-a-glace summary of the subject; and some people are dead-set against using IBs at all. If used, however, it should be correct—and "gunshot" is not correct, while "homicide by gunshot" certainly is not. I prefer ballistic trauma myself, but other editors have changed it back. — ATS &#128406;  talk  20:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The word "gunshot" is not incorrect because nobody is reading it and coming away with an incorrect understanding of what happened. Don't think I'm not noticing that I've asked this repeatedly and it just kind of keeps getting ignored: what facts are readers not getting when the word "gunshot," rather than anything else, is used? And if the answer is "there aren't any," where's the inaccuracy?


 * So I think we're at an impasse. If you can't see how a term like "ballistic trauma" on a ten-year-old child's article is a completely inappropriate, completely unacceptable way to go forward, I don't foresee either of us coming up with a compromise. If this gets escalated further, I think it's going to get uglier than either of us would want it to. This sucks.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 21:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that we're at an impasse. We're an encyclopedia and we deign to be correct; meantime, Wikipedia is not censored, and a cause of death is a cause of death, regardless of the age of the deceased. At any rate, this was a pleasant discussion, and cheers to you. — ATS  &#128406;  talk  21:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I should mention one other thing before I forget: your explanation that the reader sees "gunshot" and gets it, so to speak, is the reason I didn't change it back again. The problem lies in that there's a reasonable chance that someone else will. If you revert a change that is literally accurate, an editor could argue that you proceed from "I don't like it", which would hurt your position in any dispute. — ATS &#128406;  talk  23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I could argue the same thing vis-a-vis IDHT because going purely on content, I don't understand why "gunshot" is inaccurate. Edit wars at that infobox need to stop somewhere, and why would I put a stop to them with anything but what I think it should say?  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Because it continues an edit war. Per WP:EW, An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. This is inviolable. — ATS &#128406;  talk  23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Homicide is the cause of death, similarly to how cause of death is mentioned in articles for Phil Hartman and Bob Crane. AldezD (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading this whole thread might seem imposing but it won't take long, and you'll learn why I want Barsi's article to say "gunshot." Crane, Hartman, and Christina Grimmie aren't necessarily relevant but since I didn't dispute what any of these people's cause of death was, explaining that it's homicide isn't really a valuable reaction to anything that's been said here. Regarding Barsi, there are three opinions, they're each miles apart from the others, as to what it says and it's clear this thread isn't going to form consensus, let alone a compromise.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Homicide is not a cause of death under any definition of the word, and highlighting errors in other articles should lead to those errors being fixed, not exacerbated. Meantime, I have begin a section at the article's talk page. — ATS &#128406;  talk  23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack T. Chick
My edits are not vandalism. I made a legitimate edit, with a side comment you may not have approved of. I fixed up the page without adding my own two cents, but I must say. The way you messaged me was quite appalling.

Perhaps you're not aware of the lunacy and evil that Jack Chick brought unto this world.

LET ME MAKE MYSELF CLEAR: I DID NOT VANDALIZE THE PAGE. I FIXED THE BIRTH/DEATH DATES AND LEFT THE "GOOD RIDDANCE SCUMBAG" COMMENT IN THE EDIT DESCRIPTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamkasbar (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You made "a legitimate edit," true. I never said different. But your "side comment" is entirely against policy. If you don't want me to send you "appalling" messages, like the one that you apparently didn't read since you seem to think I accused you of vandalism, don't use completely stupid edit summaries like that. And if you need to message me in the future, please do so on Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons.  RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't make any more negative/stupid comments on my edit summaries, I guess. Btw the message via wikimedia was an accident.

Your question
Which, I think was deleted.. Im not sure how an anonymous user can claim to be me, but it wasn't me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontheroad111 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)