User talk:Sakaimover/Archive 1

September 2018
Hello, Sakaimover,

I was really quite taken aback by your comment, "If I don’t make a revert and apply the warning, someone else will and they will get credit for it." Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game and is not a competition or game of any kind. Please abandon any thought of getting "credit" for anything or trying to beat other editors to the punch. We are here to build an encyclopedia and not to rack up points. Quality and accuracy and civility to other editors are far more important here than speed and building up your edit count. Please rethink your attitude toward this project as reflected by this comment. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see... I’d hoped that my tireless efforts were appreciated as a benefit to the project. Sakaimover (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been editing for seven days and have made 332 edits. I have been editing for nine years and have made about 52,000 edits. You are new and have a lot to learn. Please take things slowly and carefully. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

AIV
Can you explain this. Kpg jhp  jm  01:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

AIV reports
Why are you removing other user's vandalism reports only to re-report the user yourself? That doesn't seem to be that helpful. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 01:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am patrolling recent changes to find and revert vandalism and report vandals. I was in the process of reporting that user but I was stopped because the above user had done it. I felt that it was my report to make, so I reverted and then added my own report. Sakaimover (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I see that you are working on a template regarding “bad AIV reports.” I do sincerely hope that you don’t intend to apply it to my talk page as I was simply acting in good faith for the credit I am due. Thanks Sakaimover (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "my report to make"? Didn't I warn you about this type of behavior yesterday? You really need to rethink your attitude about such things. Wikipedia is not a game and it is not a competition. If you continue with this attitude, you may well be blocked for disruptive editing. Stop it now. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my ignorance here but I truly am trying to contribute to the project by keeping it free of vandalism. I will try to be careful and not step on anyone’s toes, since I know that a block will ruin my chances of becoming an admin. Thanks for your advice. Sakaimover (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to be an administrator, then you need to be cautious in your editing, and you need to be prepared to explain your actions. So, please explain why you reverted a legitimate AIV report filed by another editor, and then filed the same report under your own name. I look forward to your explanation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained above and you have countered my explanation. I intend to heed your advice. Sakaimover (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is some friendly advice: Nobody ever became an administrator here by going around talking about "the credit I am due". This is a collaborative project, not a giant competition. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

MLW
Lesson i just want to help to turn the article like ROH, NJPW and Impact Wrestling but i don't want my help im sorry im out if cause problems i dont want war or disruptive editing ok sorry thanks for the conversation.ChupaCU123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello if I have made a mistake in aggressively reverting your change(s) to the article, then please accept my sincerest apologies and assurances that no offense was intended. Sakaimover (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Juan Soto and "I don't care one way or the other"
Let me be perfectly frank: If you don't care then you had absolutely no reason to revert that IP. If anything that single statement is more damning than anything else you have said, because it shows you have a bias to reverting IP editors for no reason to try to rack up some imaginary "points". I'm going to firmly suggest you stop reverting editors all together until you can tell the difference. If you continue this behavior I will report you to ANI. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I HIGHLY suggest you remove your "I've gotten 7 people blocked" box from your user page. You should NOT be bragging about that. All of this is increasing my itch to report you for not being here to build an encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sakaimover (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC). Adding: I notice that you said you have an “itch to report” me for not being here to build an encyclopedia. This strikes me as quite an aggressive - and is frankly a trigger point that causes a fair measure of personal distress - addition to your preceding comment, which as you will see I have heeded well. I can assure you that I am committed to the project and that I truly am here to help build an encyclopedia in a collaborative and friendly manner. I truly hope that we can reconcile and that perhaps I can learn a great deal from you, as you seem to be very talented in successfully navigating the admin noticeboards. Sakaimover (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * is telling you pretty much the same thing that I told you above. "Racking up imaginary points" is seen as a really bad attitude here. Please try to get the message. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback . Since Tarage’s warning I have been taking it slower and I’ve been careful to avoid biting newcomers. Sakaimover (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like you missed the spirit of the warning though. You've spent all of your time reverting vandalism, which isn't a bad thing in itself, but you have at least in one case reverted a legitimate edit because you couldn't tell it was one. Hence my advice that you go and edit an article rather than patrol vandalism. It's next to impossible for you to know what is and isn't vandalism 100% of the time unless you know how to edit and have contributed to an article. Even people who have get it wrong. Stop reverting, go write an article or improve one. That's what I'm suggesting. --Tarage (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect info in credits for - "Side Effects" by 'The Chainsmokers'
Mandawegga123 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Hi, I am new to wikipedia editing so please excuse any mistakes on my end. For the song 'Side Effects' by 'The Chainsmokers,' can you please change the name in the credits from 'Dong An' to 'Tony Ann' because that's what the writer is referred to as on Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, and all other online sources. Please see credits below for verification:

https://genius.com/The-chainsmokers-side-effects-lyrics

https://tidal.com/track/93905929

Thank you!

Mandawegga123 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Mandawegga123 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Mandawegga123 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2018 (PST)
 * See this is exactly what I mean. The editor above is correct, that is the name I'm seeing used. You reverting them was incorrect. --Tarage (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. please accept my apology, I reverted your edit too hastily. Sakaimover (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I really think you should lay off reverting anyone for a while and go edit an article. --Tarage (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Mandawegga123
You are welcome to edit the article in question, constructively, as you see fit. As I explained, I was too hasty in reverting you; however, I am not participating in editing that article currently. As such, you should be the one to make any edits you believe are necessary and discuss reverts by other editors on the article’s talk page. Sakaimover (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Tasks
You asked me a question, but now your question is gone before I had time to answer. In any event, please check out Community portal for useful things to do. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Robert Nockolds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FRS ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stephen_Robert_Nockolds check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stephen_Robert_Nockolds?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) 09:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Maisie Richardson-Sellers, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the lead in my talk page, you would have seen my kind request not to have warning templates posted here. I would have preferred for you to leave me your own note written in your own words explaining your concerns. That being said, I don’t believe my edit was defamatory; rather, it was an observation. I won’t revert or pursue the matter. Just letting you know. Thanks. Sakaimover (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "...probably for attention" is clearly defamatory – it's also WP:OR WP:COMMENTARY to boot. Don't do that again. And if you don't want warning templates on your Talk page, don't make edits that warrant them. That is all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be civil on my talk page and drop the condescension. With my panic attacks the way they’ve been lately, I certainly don’t need any triggers right now. And I have to wonder if in fact your intent was to trigger me? Sakaimover (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit on Cmd.exe?
What do you mean, unconstructive? Not only was I removing vandalism, you've not even reverted any edit I've made. Thegreatluigi (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake, sorry. I was trying to revert the vandal edit but you had already done it - then I accidentally warned you instead of the vandal. I’ll remove the warning from your talk page. Sakaimover (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

RFA Question
I think you question is pretty well thought out. I don't think I asked a RFA question until I had a healthy year and 15K in edits under my belt. Enjoy your WikiBreak! -- Dolotta (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Some questions
You have a notice here on your talk page that asks that no one leave templated warnings for you and yet you routinely add templated warnings for other editors. Can you explain the discrepancy?

You added an infobox to Stephen Robert Nockolds and then populated it with various biographical information. That article only has a single reference which is not available online. How did you verify the accuracy of the information in the infobox?

Do you intend to add new, verifiable content to the encyclopedia? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I’m happy to explain: I’ve decided to take a break from editing for a while so as to return later with a better sense of purpose and direction. Sakaimover (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Although I am relatively new to the project, I am aware of simple things like vandalism and NPOV, which is where you will find all of my reverts since my block was lifted. With that said, I suppose I am prone to interpreting warning templates on my own talk page as an assumption of bad faith... and yes, on reflection of the behavior that led to my block, I am acutely aware of the irony.
 * 2) The information I added to the infobox was present within the body of the article. I did not fill in anything that wasn’t already present. I do intend to add content, yes; I am just overwhelmed by not being exactly sure where to start. The minor tasks I have undertaken (ex. infoboxes) have been a way to learn more about editing and article structure by making the edits. I suppose I have been biding my time for lack of direction or mentorship, and I am sorry for putting you in the uncomfortable position of having to watch me.
 * You said a few days ago that you would take a break to develop "a better sense of purpose and direction" and yet you have returned quite quickly to make a lot of edits, including many that other editors see as problematic. Look, nobody here can possibly know what your IQ is, and even if we did, it would mean nothing. What matters here is the quality of your edits and not your IQ claim. The same principle applies to your autism claim. If you have difficulty picking up subtle social cues, then I will be doing you a favor by speaking directly. An editor who claims to be smarter than half of the members of Mensa International ought to be able to contribute productively to this encyclopedia for a solid year without any complaint about their pattern of editing. Please set out to improve the encyclopedia in other ways and avoid riling up your fellow editors. Use your superior brain to do so. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I am aware of how hard it is to pick up on social queues, let me be as blunt as possible. Stop reverting editors for vandalism unless it's on an article you are currently editing. Stop creating user pages for banned editors. Stop templating people. Stop doing anything that isn't editing articles. Please don't do any of these for at least six months. It is very frustrating to watch you say you're going to take a break or edit articles and then immediately return to trying to be the edit police. I am asking as nicely as I can. Please stop doing what you are doing. --Tarage (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also so you don't feel like I'm relentlessly attacking you, I have to say your citations are great. If you do that for six months, I'll have no complaints. You are doing great everywhere except looking for vandalism to revert. --Tarage (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I was afraid that finding and adding refs wasn’t going to please you or since it is a pretty minor task and Cullen seemed to demand that I write articles — which I’m sorry but I haven’t found one to work on yet. I reverted back to patrolling recent changes because I thought I could do a better job at it this time. But if I am allowed to make small contributions, then I don’t mind focusing on that and avoiding vandalism work. Sakaimover (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * References to high quality reliable sources are like gold here on Wikipedia. Adding them properly to the encyclopedia is a highly worthy endeavor equal to writing new articles, because it improves existing articles and improves the encyclopedia as a whole. Nobody will criticize you for adding genuine gold to the encyclopedia. Just make sure that your references are of the highest quality. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What Cullen said. Basically, avoid vandalism stuff. Do anything else. You don't have to go fast. It's not a race. Just do what you can. I believe in you. --Tarage (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
Thank you for reverting the nonconstructive edit at Rio de Janeiro. However, I think you're jumping the gun by using the level 4 "you may be blocked" warning on the IP's talk page. That account has been editing for all of three minutes. The person may or may not be here to make actual contributions, but it's best to give the benefit of the doubt. The user may not have realized how well Wikipedia is monitored, and may not have seen any warnings or reversions yet. The level 2 and 3 templates exist for a reason. Just a thought. Again, thanks for your help. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * actually a level 4 warning was appropriate. Four vandal edits were made, and your second warning was a level 1 - it should have been a level 3. Sakaimover (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Vaccines
Vaccine related articles on wikipedia get really contentious sometimes, and I suggest that you propose changes on the talk page of the article to make sure other editors are ok with your proposed changes before you edit the article(i'm watching you now so i'll see if you propose anything on a talk page and will try to advise you whether it is a reliable source). You have added some unreliable studies that were critical of vaccines to MMR vaccine controversy and Gardasil, some editors would say you are an anti-vaxer and consider this to reason for a topic ban to prevent you from editing (or even talking about) vaccine articles. I don't think you should be topic banned, but just a heads up that this is a highly controversial area. I edit vaccine articles a lot and have somehow managed to get threatened with a topic ban multiple times by an editor(s) who thought I was an anti-vaxer AND get accused by another editor of being paid by big pharma (accusations of pro-vaccine bias are not likely to get you in trouble, probably the one accusing you of pro vaccine bias is the one who will get a topic ban). Feel free to ask me if you have any questions related to wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The comment above says you should seek consensus before making edits to these articles. I echo that. The studies you added are unreliable, some are in predatory open access journals, several are written by well-known anti-vaccine cranks with no expertise in the field, and you need to seek guidance form editors more experienced in reviewing antivaccine claims before adding content to articles. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , I am quite neutral, not antivaccine. I was just trying to contribute sourced information that I have encountered in my reading on the topic. However, I will take your advice and avoid that subject. Sakaimover (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The last thing I want to do is discourage new editors, I just wanted to inform you that some the sources you used were not reliable, and suggest that you check with me or another editor about the reliability of your sources, because some editors will have near zero tolerance for imperfect sourcing if it could look anti-vaccine (i've even been accused of pushing anti-vaccine bias for removing unsourced material that said good things about vaccines. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * why would they be upset if the source said any particular thing about a subject or disagree with what the source says? Are there acceptable and unacceptable points of view here? Sorry if I’m a little slow - again, I’m still trying to learn about the culture. Sakaimover (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, feel free to ask me if you have questions. As far as what point of view is acceptable, promotion of facts verifiable with reliable sources (without taking sides on matters of opinion) is how everyone should edit, attempting to skew the facts in any way is not acceptable, and wikipedia articles should be free of bias. That said, some people do try to add their biases, this can be grounds for a topic ban if they are so biased as to be unable or unwilling to edit a certain topic neutrally.
 * I have seen a suboptimal tendency for certain editors who watch most vaccine articles(I watch most vaccine articles too that is not a bad thing) to jump on anything that could be interpreted as anti-vaccine bias without applying the same standard to pro-vaccine bias. (clarification: before anyone says "there no such thing as pro-vaccine bias you antivaxxer!" let me state that I am referring to opinionated language about vaccine related laws and policy as pro-vaccine bias, factually making clear that vaccines work citing reliable medical sources is not bias in any way). Tornado chaser (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI
When it comes to sources, you can always check with the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and for this particular subject, WP:MEDRS may also be helpful. - wolf  04:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ref SS Scharnhorst
Your actions on Scharnhorst while I was in the middle of working on the page cost me a lot of wasted time. Whatever you did this morning, please do not do it again.Gousinsaang (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sakaimover did not edit Scharnhorst this morning, not sure what your complaining about? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)