User talk:Skywatcher68/Archive 1

Billy Goat Tavern
But you are quoting the SNL skit, not the restaurant. 216.201.121.82 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Radiator Springs
An article that you have been involved in editing, Radiator Springs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Radiator Springs. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZeroGiga (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

minor characters on Cars (film)
I've reprimanded the guy on his talk page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd have done the same if more showed up. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A heads-up about more goings-on. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Skywatcher68, after you deleted my mention of Tommy Joe from Mater's profile, you said "Sorry, video game stuff belongs the video game articles." Well, if that is the case, then how come the Wikipedia articles for both Cars videogames don't have any profiles on the gosh-darn videogame-exclusive characters?!? FlapjackStantz (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx. I am familiar with Edokter - and, having not seen this specific edit as of yet - have faith that the edit should be okay based on my previous experiences, especially as the character being added is a notable person in-and-of-themselves. If not, I will take it up with them directly. No worries. SpikeJones (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the edit, yes - I agree with you that the character should not be on THAT specific page (but can be on the List Of... characters page). I've suggested it to Edokter, let's see what happens.  Should be a reasonable, even-minded discussion, if any occurs at all. SpikeJones (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Cars characters in other media
I have declined the Prod on List of Cars characters in other media since redirects must go to WP:RFD. However, since content was merged, to comply with our GFDL licence it is unlikely it will be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" films
Hello!

Thank you for replacing that link last night... 06:31 hrs. GMT... amongst your main edit.

The editor concerned seems to behave "like a dog without a bone"... hopefully he will go away.

Best wishes.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: I notice that he has just finished reverting your re-instating. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been keeping tabs on that one. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. I noticed you reverted his ten minutes ago. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just escalated to Level 4 due to bad edits at Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, Hulk, and 21 Jump Street (film). --Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup invitation
I've formatted the WikiProject Cleanup page to include members for those that are interested in joining, similar to how other projects have members. Since you've contributed relatively recently to the project's list page, I formally extend this invitation to join WikiProject Cleanup! I've also created a userbox template for members to use on their user pages. Thank you for your contributions to help improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

... IP 76.186.30.3...six months block. Well done!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection on Maze Runner and Scorch Trials film pages
Hi!

Thanks for the suggestion. I am hesitant to follow through on it for the moment, since sometimes there are good contributions on both pages from IP users, but I will definitely give it a try if this person persists. I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I hope I do it right if I have to!

Bice24 (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Bice24

A kitten for you!
hi

Larrydouglas222 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 

List of Cars characters in other media listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Cars characters in other media. Since you had some involvement with the List of Cars characters in other media redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Please be careful when making edits as you accidentally removed a request. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. My mind must have wandered while editing and thought I had made two copies rather than just one. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Why I removed the Lincoln stories.
See Lincoln assassination article talk page. Those dreams may not have happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.48 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you say so in your first edit summary? Could've saved us both some trouble. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

/sorry/
I got angry, cause the guy talking about " frustrated Pole" is actually from Poland and he got me off nerves. Now the article is 100% free of my opinion. If you think I should change something, let me know. PS. I still claim the video is insulting and fake. Holocaust was a tragedy for Polish people. Mistaking victim with oppressor is bad :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.31.133 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you watch the video? They simply want to change the law which makes illegal any accusations of Polish people taking part in the holocaust, that includes Polish kapos. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I did watch it. Firstly, you are wrong, but it is common... Did you read the law? New Polish law do not forbid accusations of particular people, especially kapos. The law itself forbids accusing Polish as a nation - you can accuse those people, just you cannot say 'Poles are responsible for Holocaust' or 'Camps vere Polish' or like american Jew does: "polish people killed more Jews than Nazis". Kapos were considered criminals and been hunted even during WWII by Polish Underground Army (the penalty for collaboration with the nazis was death, with execution right after reading sentence), no one defends them. Saying Poles are responsible for Holocaust is the same as saying that Jews are - cause kapos were not only Polish people. Furthermore, law makes illegal only accusations without proof and it does not make any resarch or art illegal. Secondly... they don't say they don't like the law. They directly insult Polish people, deliberately accusing not kapos, but whole nation. Blaming people for Nazi collaboration is considered extremely insultive and they know it. Almost everyone in Poland lost something in the war, as WWII took about 25% of Poland population. Maybe it's hard to understand, but Poland and Israel both have WWII scars, that make some things very emotional.

If you think the video was not offensive - why even Israel embassy condemned it, while they also condemn Polish law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.31.133 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The video itself is not offensive, they want to ensure there is not, as the Times of Israel puts it, "a chilling effect on debating history, harming freedom of expression and leading to a whitewashing of Poland’s wartime history." What's offensive is the use of "Polish Holocaust". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The law, literally (if you're curious): „każdy, kto publicznie i wbrew faktom przypisuje polskiemu narodowi lub państwu polskiemu odpowiedzialność lub współodpowiedzialność za zbrodnie popełnione przez III Rzeszę Niemiecką lub inne zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości, pokojowi i zbrodnie wojenne — będzie podlegał karze grzywny lub pozbawienia wolności do lat trzech”. It says: everyone who publicly and agains the facts would accuse Polish nation or Polish state (country? It means you cannot say that Polish government collaborated with Nazis in planning Holocaust) for responsibility or partial responsibility for 3rd Reich crimes or other crimes agains humanity, peace and war crimes - will be fined or imprisoned for up to 3 years. I think 'publicly' 'agains the facts' and 'nation/state' are very important words here, which are often skipped when international media speak about the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.31.133 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Undid changes in the article
Hello. I have noticed that you undid my change in the Ruderman Family Foundation article, where I've precised clearly that the Nazis were Germans. This is very important for us, because there were no such a nation as Nazis. They were exactly Germans. Naming Nazi Germans only "Nazis" is widely considered in Europe as an attempt to whitewash the historical truth and improving their reputation. And to cut the link between Nazis and Germans also. So believe me this specifying is absolutely needed.

Buldog francuski (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's sad that the article 2 days ago had direct links to Jewish organizations statements, which claimed that the video is harmful and propagating a lie. Now the article only says it was removed "because of their concerns for their [Jews] safety". So now the statements in the video are the truth, just dangerous. Polish people felt insulted? Let's write it in a way that will make them agressors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.31.132 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia deals in facts, not opinions. Claiming the video was any attempt at "Holocaust denial" is clearly an unsubstantiated opinion. The most recent edits by Buldog francuski expands on what those organizations have publicly stated what's wrong with the video and do it in a neutral manner. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You are not answering to what I am saying. I am not writing anything about holocaust denial, but about reasons that took down the video. It was took down cause Jewish organisations said its wrong, and now Wikipedia says it was takes down with concers of their safety. Every trace of protests that were made against the video is wiped. Why? Those protests were a fact, published on embassy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.31.132 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Shared IP
Hi! I noticed you've put the shared IP template to my talk page. To be honest, I had an account before, but lost the e-mail so the password could be retrieved. It was like three years ago and I don't remember the username I registred at the time. I know that this IP "may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution" and that I might receive messages on my page that weren't intended for me, but since this occured I was upset and didn't create another login and moved away from here. I've returned in the middle of last year, but sporadically. I don't own a PC at home and since I came to the university I've tried to be more active here. Thanks for the warning. Best wishes!

Bicarbonate in cancer treatment
There's nothing specific in the archived reference either. I verified. Not you apparently.2A01:E34:EDB4:C0E0:CD25:3EB9:1901:C9F9 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First two sentences in the archived article, under "Overview": "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that cancer is caused by infection with a type of yeast known as Candida albicans. Available scientific evidence also does not support the idea that sodium bicarbonate works as a treatment for any form of cancer or that it cures yeast or fungal infections." How is that not specific? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thre're a number of trecent papers supporting the idea that sodium bicarbonate may help immuno- and chemo-therapy. They weren't avalaible at the time (2008). The new editor in chief of the Cancer Research (journal), Chi Van Dang, M.D., Ph.D., professor in the Molecular & Cellular Oncogenesis Program at The Wistar Institute and scientific director of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, is supporting this view, which is by the way, his presonal area of research. Those who elected him at this function could have ignored that. So things are changing and we can't just rely on an old reference without consistance to stay in obscurantism. https://wistar.org/news/press-releases/how-might-baking-soda-boost-cancer-therapy 2A01:E34:EDB4:C0E0:CD25:3EB9:1901:C9F9 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One also cannot rely on press releases. See WP:MEDPRI. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Your recent editing history at Sami Yusuf shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mjahangir777 simply won't listen. The disputed content has been discussed on the talk page and accepted by admin Þjarkur. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Þjarkur is not an administrator Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 18:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That person should not be responding to full-protection edit requests. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be obvious now that Mjahangir777 isn't capable of reaching consensus. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Will Cain bio / error request edit
Why did you un-do an edit I made today to Will Cain's bio. It had factually incorrect information about him announcing he's leaving ESPN! -Dave.Nagle@espn.com
 * As noted on your IP's talk page, you're supposed to discuss edits to any articles where you have a conflict of interest on said article's talk page. That's also not the only information you removed nor did you provide any edit summary explaining why they were removed. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Alavi Bohras
Hello Sir, I think Alavi Bohras has been mistakenly considered as Dawoodi Bohras. Unfortunately it is too hard to plug this. Thsnks for your edit, sir. --NoorAlavi (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Mazewaxie convo
You should have asked about the background a bit more. Seb had accused Mazewaxie of being a sock of TedEdwards ,etc. - All of the regular WP:TEND bag of tricks. Incivility enough to shed AGF like a Huskie in high summer. Then, after schooled so hard it leaves a dent, Seb "sem-retires" after telling people numerous times to "fuck off". Only, he doesn't retire. Perversely, he keeps editing, and posting further incivility. You walked in on that scene. Like I said, you could have read the room better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone being incivil to you doesn't mean you get to be incivil in return. You've been a registered editor for nine years; you should know better than to stoop to that level. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have a surprisingly low threshold for douchebaggery; I should do something about that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a public servant whose job description includes customer service. Used to play Mortal Kombat as a stress reliever but my reflexes are way too slow now. :-) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Stillwater Area High School‎
Ignore the undo alert. I caught the mention the second time around and have already restored the material. Sorry. Meters (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work
You have earned this service award. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

IP welcome
It is a school IP address, and in view of the regular vandalism - WP:AGF is always a way to go, to remove the welcome is simply making it more of an excuse for the various users to carry on in ignorance. JarrahTree 04:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Coronavirus and "Kung Flu"
Let's not ignore and forget the online phenomenon and racists using the "Kung Flu" name online. Google it and you'll find millions. And also, resort to the talk page first before you revert someone's edits, please?— Squid Homme  (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still a joke or, if you prefer, a meme. "Boaty McBoatface" got 124,109 votes. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, It's worth mentioning. Or if you choose to ignore the facts that xenophobia did happen.— Squid Homme  (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just a stupid meme. As such, it should be on the List of Internet phenomena rather than as if it was ever seriously used as an alternate name the 2019 novel coronavirus. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added "Kung Flu" to that list. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Apparently it's common in Belgian media. You can access it here.— Squid Homme  (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've also changed Kung flu so if anyone tries to bring it up, they get directed to the relevant section of the list.

PBS
Hi, ignore my recent revert of your edit (itself a revert). I restored the article to the last reviewed version as I didn't believe the first unreviewed edit to be valuable. Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems with editing at Richard Stanley (director)

 * Hi. I have read your latest post on my talk page, and checked the editing history. I'm afraid on this occasion I have to say that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is inaccurate.
 * Wikipedia's policy on reporting about living persons does not permit publishing accusations of criminal actions unless the person concerned has been convicted.
 * It is no defence to say that you are referring to the accusations as "allegations", not asserting that they are facts.
 * Nor is it a defence to say that "it is fact that allegations exist"; many things exist that are not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia, for many reasons.
 * The fact that someone has posted an accusation in a blog does not make it acceptable to publicise that accusation on Wikipedia, not matter how many quotation marks you put round it.
 * Posting material in a Wikipedia article because you think "the public need to know" is contrary to the whole purpose of Wikipedia: we do not act as a medium for promoting a campaign or for publicising anything. JBW (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you have me confused with editor Match150 and/or KenzoShibata. All I did was restore references a couple of times and call your attention to the possible sockpuppetry. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all my apologies for the fact that, to save time, I wrote one message and pasted it to several user talk pages, rather than writing several individual messages. As a result of that I posted to you what was intended to be an overall explanation of why the editing of the editors in question was mistaken, but which which I now realise looks as though I thought that you had done all those things. However, you did restore material which had been removed and which violated the BLP policy, in an edit at 15:17 (UTC) 24 March. The editors who removed it referred to unreliability of sources, and your edit summaries suggest that you were considering only that issue (understandably, since that was the issue which had been raised). What I intended to do was to draw to your attention the fact that there is another reason why removing the material was correct, and restoring it wrong, quite apart from whether the cited sources were reliable or not. You added content which should not have been there, and the fact that you were only re-adding something that someone else had previously added makes no difference, so I do think I was right to explain the relevant issues to you, even though I apologise for doing so in a way that gave a misleading impression.
 * As for the sockpuppetry issue, it looks as though you may well be right, but I don't see enough yet to act on. If it does continue then of course I'll be willing to reconsider that. JBW (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See, that's the other reason I wanted to make sure the article had the attention of an admin. Those editors' edit summaries looked to me like they were engaged in typical whitewhashing (e.g.: declaring a reliable source like Deadline unreliable). –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This time-saving effort seems to have caused a bit of a problem. See the comments from ToBeFree below. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Egg on face...
I have now carefully re-read the relevant sections of the BLP policy, and I have decided that Richard Stanley qualifies as an exemption as a "public figure". JBW (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Important notices
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is about your recent contribution to the Bobby Kaufmann page. Of all the reverts there, I personally find yours to be the most concerning, as you have read the edit summary (which contained a good, policy-compliant explanation) and responded with an own one, saying "take it to the Talk page, please."
 * Not only is this a direct contradiction of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, which require you to take such matters to talk pages in general. It is also a concerning re-addition of challenged material, backed up by a Twitter photo of a letter-to-the-editor, neither of which are useful sources for such claims (WP:RSSELF).
 * Further similar violations of the biographies of living persons policy may lead to a topic ban from the area, possibly without further warning.
 * Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See, now that's perfectly clear and should have been brought up by the anonymous editor either in their summaries or on the Talk page rather than engaging in a cryptic edit war. –Skywatcher68 (talk)
 * Such as by writing "I have deleted the inaccurate information about a living person contained in this section. The sourcing used to defend the information was biased and agenda-driven. It also lacked additional context and relevancy to the subject"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as "WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS". People continually make claims of inaccurate and biased/agenda-driven edits; linking to the relevant rules demonstrates they're not simply engaged in whitewashing. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm. Okay, I can understand that wish, but there is no such requirement. It was perfectly reasonable and policy-compliant to remove the material, and even to keep removing the material against multiple other users' opposition. Such removals are explicitly exempt from the edit warring policy and its three-revert rule. There is also no need for prior discussion on the article's talk page; the text "immediately and without waiting for discussion" appears in bold text in the lead section of WP:BLP.
 * Most, if not all, of the other editors who have restored the material have clearly made an accidental mistake there. I informed them about the problem and am relatively certain that it has been a one-time issue, and such issues will inevitably happen from time to time because we're all human. The only editor who seemed to have a problematic view about the situation was you in my opinion, because you did take the time to read the concerns and chose to actively dismiss them with a custom summary. If I correctly understand, you are now partially blaming the IP editor for your mistake. If they had not provided an edit summary, I'd even be inclined to accept this partial blame as somehow justified. But when someone writes "I have deleted the inaccurate information about a living person contained in this section. The sourcing used to defend the information was biased and agenda-driven. It also lacked additional context and relevancy to the subject", and the source for the removed statement was a Twitter photo of a letter-to-the-editor, then there is zero concern about their removal. They did the right thing, and you obstructed them in enforcing verifiability and neutrality.
 * I'm not even necessarily looking for an apology; I don't care much about past mistakes of any editor as long as they have learned from them. I very often write "no worries" because in almost all cases, there is nothing to worry about. I do not want to bear grudges and I favor moving on after disputes. The issue in this very specific case is that if I understand correctly, such reverts will happen again in the future because you consider them to be justified. Just to make that unmistakably clear: They're not. Don't do it again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was perusing Recent Changes and saw an IP engaged in an edit war. The 3rr notice does state "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." I couldn't tell if the editor had a legitimate WP:BLP concern or was simply engaged in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, thus the reason for suggesting the Talk page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thankful for recent changed patrolling and think it is undervalued by many article creators. I just don't think that restoring BLP violations, warning the user for having removed them, joining the edit war on clearly the wrong side, and then even insisting that the other party should have used the article's talk page instead, is the correct approach. And of course you could tell if this was a legitimate concern. The user explicitly complained about the sourcing, so you could have taken a moment to look at the sourcing, and would have noticed that at least parts of the material had a tag pointing to a Twitter post. That's a red flag; further checking would have revealed that the sourcing was indeed not useful enough to insist in restoring the content. Yes, it would probably be excessive to ask for a detailed analysis of the situation in each such case, but "Twitter as a source", "person insistingly complaining about bad sourcing" and "BLP" are a relatively obvious "don't restore" combination. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True, I was too hasty to look closely enough to see if the tweets were backed up by a reliable source or not. It would be nice if more editors would outline their concerns on talk pages rather than trying to squeeze them into edit summaries. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

ONUS
Hi, do you expect an account blocked for sock puppetry to discuss and reach a concensus per WP:ONUS. That content was long standing before it was removed by multiple IP's and socks. I beleieve Admin was pointing the policy to avoid dispute. If you are concerned about the sock claiming Deccan Herald is a party mouthpiece, it's one of the reliable sources used in Indian articles. The sock master has a history of using false edit summaries from my experience. If you have no dispute over the content please self-revert. Thanks -  SUN EYE 1  04:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That paragraph was added in July by an IP which curiously has not edited any other article and doesn't seem the type to invoke a policy just because there's a dispute. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I don't find anything wrong with the content. The IP range changes often and the same range is edit warring with each other too.. I messaged Tobefree on their talk page and will wait for their response. Thanks -  SUN EYE 1  05:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and, thanks for the ping. When I had protected the page and removed the disputed content, I wasn't aware that the user insisting on removal was a sockpuppet of a blocked user. It may be reasonable to revert their removal per WP:BE. The main question is whether their verifiability concerns are justified or not. One of the disputed Wikipedia sentences claims that the article subject "spoke out against [...] the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019." The cited source says that "he had given interviews in support of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act". I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, but that Wikipedia sentence seems to say the opposite of the cited source, so the concerns may be valid.
 * I think the best thing can do in this situation is to create a section on the article's talk page about the disputed content. A short explanation could help:
 * (do feel free to copy that without attribution)
 * And then simply wait for a week even if the sockpuppet can obviously not discuss. Perhaps someone else has an objection, and it is reasonable to wait a week for others to voice concerns. When the week is over and noone has complained, could add the content to the article, mentioning the talk page in their edit summary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree, I've just read the source from one OneIndia Tamil and it says Murugan has spoken against the protests against CAA and not the CAA itself so someone had miswrote it. Am I free to re-add the rest of the content because the sock master has been doing this to too many articles from the 157.49.*.* IP Range..-  SUN EYE 1  12:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is usually fine to revert sockpuppet contributions. Regarding the IP range, "x.y.*.*" means "x.y.0.0/16": Special:Contributions/157.49.0.0/16. That's a huge range; there will likely be false positives because no single person has exclusive access to a /16 range. If you are certain that it's a blocked user's contribution, you can revert it, with the following sentence in mind:
 * I don't have an opinion about the content; if it's verifiable, do feel free to re-add it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Thanks for the reply. I can say about 90% of the edits from the IP range are by this user from their pro-Hindu nationalist stance and unique edit summaries and the content they add. I'am aware thar it is nearly impossible to block the entire IP range. I wouldn't have focused so much about this specific user if they hadn't given repeated abuses and near death threats in Tamil in my talk page. I'll re-add the content about CAA but the claim of speaking against muslims is in only one source and can't find any more sources so I'll leave it out. -  SUN EYE 1  13:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @ If that works for admin, it works for me. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Thanks for the reply. I can say about 90% of the edits from the IP range are by this user from their pro-Hindu nationalist stance and unique edit summaries and the content they add. I'am aware thar it is nearly impossible to block the entire IP range. I wouldn't have focused so much about this specific user if they hadn't given repeated abuses and near death threats in Tamil in my talk page. I'll re-add the content about CAA but the claim of speaking against muslims is in only one source and can't find any more sources so I'll leave it out. -  SUN EYE 1  13:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @ If that works for admin, it works for me. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Carole Radziwill Wikipedia edits
Hi! I wanted to talk about the issues with the Carole Radziwills Wikipedia page Stevienicks420 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There really are no issues. Archived references are perfectly acceptable sources and the fact that the source is from 2018 is acknowledged in the article. If you can find a more recent source, please add it. I looked and I can't find any recent sources that are reliable. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Carole herself tweeted from her verified account saying that the information was not true. Would that be an acceptable source? Stevienicks420 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends. Does she provide any evidence or is everyone just supposed to take her word for it? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found the tweet and looked around a bit more. The apparent origin of the net worth claim is unreliable. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So how does one go about having this portion removed for good? Stevienicks420 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Best that can be done is if you add the article to your Watchlist in case someone tries to re-add the content stemming from celibritynetworth.com. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for your help. All the best! Stevienicks420 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

…
It is all pertinent information surrounding elevations RYC; I’d advise you not to engage in censorship. It would be especially unethical if you were found to have financial interest in the facility in question, as well as the parent companies; Aspen Education Group/Family Help and Wellness, CRC Health/Acadia Health, Bain Capital/ Bain and Co. It would also be unethical if you had ties to Paris Hilton (which whom had been mentioned on the page several times already). All citations are publicly available and irrefutable. I would appreciate it if you (and others) would cease and desist all hounding; as I stated before the information I’ve added countless times is both pertinent and irrefutable. 2600:387:15:517:0:0:0:8 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @2600:387:15:517:0:0:0:8 As stated by on the user talk page for :

"[T]he ElevationsRTC content you keep trying to put on the page would be better suited somewhere else, perhaps on Paris Hilton's page or pages for the other people and companies you mention."
 * Continued attempts to push this POV into the Elevations RTC article will result in the issue being brought to the attention of the WP:NPOV noticeboard. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Elevations RTC
As an employee of the United Stares federal government you should not be willing to engage in censorship. The individuals reporting me claiming conflict of interest also have a conflict of interest. The information I added is in fact pertinent, irrefutable, and verifiable to the topic of Elevations RTC a/k/a Island View RTC. 2600:387:15:514:0:0:0:7 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @2600:387:15:514:0:0:0:7 Your continuing to call this "censorship" does not make it so. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization and can do whatever it wants with its encyclopedia, within reason. I'm simply trying to enforce its rules as one of its editors. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rollback of the Wheatley controversy??
many thanks. I have removed the more dramatic words and also given the viewpoint of himself and his employer from the 12 December 2021 FIA hearing. Please make sure this doesn't get deleted anymore. Wikipedia (and especially F1 fans) need to know the historical events of what happened. Cheers and kind regards, Professor Guru

Hi Skywatcher,

I`m a journalist, I appreciate your concern. I know Wikipedia deals with a lot of trolls/ amateurs and vandalism, however it would be nice to differentiate quality content from Wiki-Trolls, and it would also be nice to be informed about just deleting 8 hours of work overnight, without first consulting with me (much appreciated).

Now... The reporting I did was based on factual information that has been ongoing for the past 2 months.

1. Mercedes made accusations. 2. Red Bull denied the allegations. 3. Last night and this morning video and audio emerged of exactly what Wheatley did and claimed not to have done. Video and audio + transcript catching someone do something that he spent 2 months denying, is (by nature) always neutral.

Therefore your removal was a mistake. Many hours have been spent researching, finding sources and explaining to F1 + Wikipedia community what exactly happened. Surely the informed reader has a right to know what he did (without you simply dismissing it as "unconstructive).

If you prefer, I shall add/ reference or include the denial of Wheatleys team/ their view point again, they gave 2 months ago from the Abu Dhabi Wikipedia page.

However... as mentioned earlier. Wikipedia and F1 fans have to right to know what happened; especially if they can hear and see the video+audio for themselves.

Cheers and kind regards, Professor Guru.

=
Hello, I'm Skywatcher68. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jonathan Wheatley seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Including the controversy is fine but please remember that you're contributing to an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. You should avoid words like "thrilling" and "unbelievable". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, some other (anonymous) editor rolled that back, not me; I just happened to notice and agree with them. Your contribution simply needs a rewrite for neutrality. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Skywatcher68. The Section added by Professor Guru "2021 Abu Dhabi Last Lap controversy" is inaccurate, biased and based on a Mercedes/Hamilton fan narrative, devoid of facts and neutrality. Please DELETE this added section and lock Jonathan Wheatley's page - or provide me with the ability to update the section to ensure the content is neutral. Clearly right now it is biased and should not be published on Wikipedia. It is defamation and based on a biased narrative by someone who is clearly a fan of the other side.
 * The proper place to discuss this is at the article's talk page; I see you've already brought it up there. I've made one request of Professor Guru ‎to provide better sources and am about to add another such request to their talk page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Skywatcher68. For reference, what professorGuru wrote above is flat out lying and biased narrative. Please have ProfessorGuru provide documented sources which show:

- Mercedes making accusations that Red Bull influenced the Stewards - Wheatley claiming not to have done what Professorguru claims he did.

He has no sources beyond his imagination or some low level blog he may be writing as a Hamilton fan.

The footage he is trying to manipulate in his fan based narrative was available since December 2012 and is being circulated by Hamilton fans on twitter - there is nothing damning in the footage. Also he is clearly excluding the same footage showing his own team (Mercedes) boss trying to beg the stewards not to allow a Safety car. The whole section he added has zero facts and is full of fiction and biased writing,
 * One admin is aware of what is happening so you can be sure that this will be removed if better sources aren't forthcoming. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Skywatcher68, I'm actually not really aware of anything. If I need to be, please point me in the right direction with a few salient diffs. Is this that German professor editor? The one who doesn't sign their name? I have a feeling where this is going to go. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the one, yes. You left a message about proper sources on their talk page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is you have allowed him to add this totally biased and false section to a published page of a reputable F1 sporting director. And the same person who added this hit job section on Wikipedia is screenshotting and circulating on Twitter and other Social media platforms to build his false narrative. Wikipedia is allowing him to try and tarnish Jonathan's reputation by keeping this false section up on the page. I would strongly urge you or the other admin you mentioned to delete this false section added by this biased fan and lock the page. Any further edits by anyone aftet this false section is removed should be done offline and be subject to admin review and approval first. The wording you have allowed him to use for example - """"" causing a "scandal", regarded as one of the most controversial race finishes to any sporting event in the 21st century, and a race result that left fans around the world "speechless" and "disgusted", As Verstappen’s hopes of winning the race and the championship slipped away during the one and a half hours long race, and during the safety car, his Red Bull team manager Wheatley can be heard on the radio to the race director, telling the race director to shorten the safety lap procedure, by not letting lapped cars to catch up to the back of the grid" """"""  etc etc - all of these are this "writers" biased interpretation of events which he is trying to justify by selectively choosing articles, twitter feeds that are written by equally biased fans of Hamilton and Mercedes peddling this false narrative.

Not one FI offocial media article can he source with the wording above. Again, this is a hit job by a fan of the other side and this section needs to be removed by Wikipedia - I cannot imagine why it is still up when its so clearly full of bias and false one sided narrative of a desperate fan.
 * No need to ping me on my own talk page. :-) The initial problem was that the edit used too much flowery language; I hadn't noticed there was also a credibility problem until after the rewrite. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the sources currently provided but it appears that has solved the credibility problem. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've brought the issue to the attention of WP:BLPN; somebody will undoubtedly review the section for WP:BLP compliance. Any further discussion should be at WP:BLPN, thanks. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarmRichards (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Re
Indeed. Account blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

npov?
Hello, you recently sent me a message on my talk page about my edits on Quidditch in Australia saying that you'd reverted my edits due to npov. Could you explain which part wasn't neutral so I can make sure not to do it in future? Most of my edits were copyediting, fixing references/dead links and table formatting so I'm a bit confused. Cheers! -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d ( talk ) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not sure WP:NPOV was the correct tag for your previous overly detailed edit but it looks like you got the idea. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm still unsure what you're referencing. I've gone through the edits a few times and I removed "they played consistantly well" incase on POV, is that what you meant? All my other edits seem very constructive. I just want to make sure I havn't done anything wrong so I don't do it again as I'm very much still learning. -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d  ( talk ) 04:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That and you had quite a bit of WP:FANCRUFT as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask in which part? I deleted extra details such as lists of scores in my edit so I feel it’s the opposite? I hope I’m not sounding argumentative, I’m just not sure you haven’t read the wrong edit or something? -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d ( talk ) 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I was referring to what I reverted; I see no real problem with the article as currently written. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong conflict of interest edit
Hello, I'm investigating the law firm involved in the conflict of interest you found in edits to a Hong Kong-related article last month (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:144.211.96.129). I run a Hong Kong legal/human rights newsletter at https://samuelbickett.substack.com. I'd like to clarify a couple of things about your findings if you're willing to chat with me. You can message me on Twitter @samuelbickett, or you can email me at that same twitter handle [at] gmail. Here's a tweet where I previously covered this firm and their activity in Hong Kong. https://twitter.com/samuelbickett/status/1527419119452180506?s=21&t=aX-pTgCnUI5-mb2a_MJCVw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spbhk (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All I really did was notice that the IP geolocates to Hong Kong, belongs to Davis Polk, and several Davis Polk employees – such as a partner named Martin Rogers – have close ties to Justice Centre Hong Kong.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

strugglingteens.com
the troubled teens industry articles to which I've been trying to bring balance are continually having this specific webpage added as a source, and i guess I'm learning. if you have thoughts or guidance on the topic, you would be learning me up and helping me the much. thank you SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)

farr4h2004 seems to be stalking and reverting and reinserting the source. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. That site is currently being used as a source twice, one of which is backed up by two other sources and the second one is to show a name has been changed. Seems to me that the main person responsible for trying to use that site as a source has been ShineBrightLittleStars00, who hasn't edited anything for two weeks.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you for that deep wisdom. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)

it appears to fall under selves published and questionable, but since I'm sandboxing the article in a complete rewrite for balance and style, I didn't want to include the source for some of the less notable assertions. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Questionable sources can be allowed when backed up by reliable sources or when being used for something not controversial.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Can; not shall. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)

Important notice renewal
Hi, regarding your recent edit to the article about Gabrielle Wolohojian, it seems that the 12-month limit on awareness is pretty accurate in some cases.

So here's a reminder that hopefully doesn't become a yearly tradition.

All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming message! Kudos to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonslayer666082 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey and I’m very sorry
I was editing the completely wrong page and am deeply sorry for the misunderstanding/mistake TheUprisingOfUk (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

America's Impact on Austro-Prussian War
Hey Sky Watcher, I'm just an undergrad upstart history major doing a research paper on America's involvement in the Austro Prussian war and our Professor instructed us to try to add to the Wiki page that concerns our topics. You edited my entry, asking about sources. I have those sources and just want to do all of this Wikipedia stuff correctly so that academia can be forwarded. Can you help me out like how I can add my info in a way that you agree with? Yomommanon (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving a welcome message on your Talk page which should clear things up.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:lightyellow; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy Holidays text 2.png

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Kanye west
Why did you delete my Kanye west 2024 information. About Germany 142.54.9.114 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Seriously? This is an encyclopedia, not a site for speculative fiction. If you want to speculate facts, you need a reliable source; certainly not some random picture of Dhar Mann.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I used the wrong source I am deeply sorry sir @Skywatcher68 😭 142.54.9.103 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Attention
Hey,lad!Gald to see you here.You are an American,right?Would you like to be my e-friend?Do you have gmail or Twitter account? Greetings from Jeff Li of 东北cn. 103.172.52.50 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Neither, sorry. Wikipedia and message boards are about as social as I get.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)