User talk:Spottedfeather

Welcome
 Hello Spottedfeather, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

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

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


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


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

How you can help:


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


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


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


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

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun.

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests
Hi, I have responded to your post at Editor assistance/Requests. Hope it helps. -- Beloved Freak  10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

List of iCarly episodes
Hello Spottedfeather, please add relevant citations to the article to show that iMatchmaker and iGot a Sponsor are the correct names. Thank you. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You were asked to stop adding it, but instead of deletion review or discussing with anyone, you just continued to recreate it over and over and over. --Smashvilletalk 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I kept adding it because no one would explain how my article was inappropriate.....and no one has explained it still.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you never bothered to ask. The official reason you were blocked was violating the 3RR rule. Since you posted the article more than 3 times, this would be the case. You were told your page was inappropriate. If you wanted more detail, you could have asked instead of continuing to edit war by putting it back up. --Smashvilletalk 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, could someone be helpful and tell me the "reasons" that my article was inappropriate ? I didn't see anything wrong with it even when I was told it was wrong. So, I fixed it and STILL it wasn't to y'alls liking. What was wrong with it ? Please, tell me.
 * It doesn't meet notability standards or even make an assertion of notability. --Smashvilletalk 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I was told to put references and I added references. What more do you people want ?Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk)
 * Please read WP:N. Again, you didn't even make an assertion of notability. But that is beside the point. Again, you were blocked for violating the 3RR rule. --Smashvilletalk 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all far, far too technical for me. Can someone please tell me exactly what I need to do to keep my articles from getting deleted ? What exactly are reliable sources ? The subject of my article was mentioned on a radio program. Should I put that in the references ?Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources and Verifiability. In short: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. [...] As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources." YouTube and IMDB, being user edited where anyone can add or edit information, do not count as verifiable.


 * Please don't be discouraged by your block; 3RR blocks are meant to make users stop editing and rethink their edits. After your block expires, I hope to see you continue editing Wikipedia. Good luck! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing just sucks. I try my best to write an article to help out a friend and am told it's not good enough and to add references. So, I add the references, and still it's not good enough. I tried adding references in the form of Shawn C. Phillps's official website, his youtube page, and IMDB. Would a person's own official website be considered the highest verifiable and reliabe source ? Seems so to me. This mess has really soured me on the whole wikipedia thing.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing you think this way. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has high notability standards for good reason: to keep the encyclopedia at a high quality level. I've looked over this guy's IMDB page; it does not look inherently notable; the problem here looks two-fold: first, the biography is for a person who may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and second, problems of using verifiable resources. IMDB and YouTube, while useful, are not reliable resources. The official site may be reliable, but if subject of the site is someone who does not meet notability standards, then you need to either 1) make an argument for the person's notability in the article, or 2) just accept that the person does not meet notability standards and focus your energy on other subjects.


 * In short, it may suck, and I feel your pain (I have had an article deleted in the past when the subject did not meet notability standards). However, these standards are necessary in order for Wikipedia to be taken seriously as a project. If the overall quality level for Wikipedia falls, the whole project will suffer. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Who decides what "notability standards" are ? And what are they ? The way that people try to explain it, it sound like people that aren't notable aren't real. Well, I assure you Shawn Phillips is real. Explain notability standards, as no one here seems to be willing to !Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You assume wrongly. I'm a real person but I sure as heck ain't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I don't know if the same case is true with Shawn Phillips, but if other users are arguing that the subject is not notable, they are doing so for a good reason; it's nothing personal. Just read the Wikipedia guidelines on the subject (see WP:NOTABILITY, or more specifically, WP:PEOPLE); those pages spell out Wikipedia's notability guidelines specifically (much better than any one editor could here on your talk page).


 * As for your question on "who decides what 'notability standards' are," these standards have been reached by discussion and consensus by the Wikipedia community at large. If you disagree with the standards, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability to change them. However, you had better have a compelling argument because you'd be going against years of Wikipedia consensus among thousands of Wikipedia editors. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at an article for the girl that plays the cashier in the Progressive Auto Insurance commercial. This article seemed to have far less notable references than the article I tried to write for Shawn Phillips. Why was the Stephanie Courtney article accepted but mine wasn't ? Mine had far more references.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel the article does not meet notability standards, you are always welcome to nominate the article for deletion under WP:AfD. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it doesn't meet notability standards, which is a stupid idea. I'm just saying that the article that I tried to put up has far more different references, yet my article was repeatedly taken down. It just doesn't make any sense that an article with more references than another was taken down while an article with practically no references is allowed to stay up. Please explain this, as no one has been able to so far. You say that Wikipedia is a site that lets everybody edit it, but in reality, when someone writes an article with great references in comparison to another article, they get shot down. Doesn't make any sense !Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pian too. Wikipedia never has high standards, they have biased standards that are jealousy guarded.Neptune123456 (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Okun/Independence Day
Howdy. I left this on the Independence Day discussion page -

As a compromise, I would suggest leaving alone the description that states he was killed by the alien, and then follow it up with the fact that the filmmakers hinted that he's simply in a coma. I'll leave this up to someone who knows how to properly format a citation of a DVD commentary.

- If you know how to do this, please do so, as I think it really is worthy of noting once you can bypass the whole citation format issue. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2017
Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

as long as the people that attack ME are blocked, too, and not just allowed to say whatever they want against the rules, which apparently only apply to me and not the people that start the fight and attack me first and not allow me to respond.
 * Wikipedia is not 'every other website in the world...', it's an encyclopedia. If  you  make any  further comments that  disparage our editors or that are otherwise inappropriate, I block you indefinately. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2018
Your recent editing history at AK-47 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Assault weapons
You should re-post this edit of yours to WT:GUNS. Share with many instead of just one. FYI & imho - the WOLF  child  18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably don't want to encourage posts like that. --Neil N  talk to me 19:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh... just figured he should know about the FA project. Should probably get a DS notice as well. † - the WOLF  child  20:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * †Nevermind, I see you just took care of that. - the WOLF  child  20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" vs "assault rifle"
Assault rifle is an internationally used and widely recognised purely technical term (a direct translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr"), describing a type of weapon (a select fire, i.e. with provision for both single-shot and fully automatic fire, weapon with a detachable magazine, chambered for an intermediate cartridge) that can not be legally owned by civilians in North America, Europe and most other places on Earth, while assault weapon is a legal/political term used only in the U.S. (AFAIK), describing semi-automatic weapons with certain features, weapons that can be legally owned by civilians, at least in the United States. The two terms thus have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and removing the term "assault rifle" from articles about military weapons that technically are assault rifles because of disliking the purely civilian/legal/political term "assault weapon" is a sign of utter ignorance. Or in other words, do not edit articles about things you obviously know absolutely nothing about, because continuing to do so will with all probability get you blocked from editing. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I DO know what I'm talking about. I never said assault rifles didn't exist. I said assault WEAPONS don't exist....which they don't. The only difference between an "assault weapon" and a hunting rifle is the colour and shape of the grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs)
 * Then why did you remove the term assault rifle  from AK-47? Twice, even . - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm so tired, I think that I was thinking of something like an uzi or some hunting rifle.

Note
--Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Concerning Jurassic Park Not Being Science Fiction
Before you restore your edits to Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park (film), may I invite you to discuss on either articles' talkpages to discuss why they are not in the science fiction genre, even though lots of documentation exists of them being in that genre?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why Jurassic Park is science fiction
The Jurassic Park novel, film, and franchise are all in the science fiction genre. Science fiction doesn't always include just spaceships and aliens. Science fiction features futuristic concepts, and Jurassic Park was a futuristic park in the middle of nowhere (like Jurassic World, which replaced it). Also, dinosaurs cannot be cloned. Scientists cloning dinosaurs is imaginative (the science fiction genre also has imaginative elements, typically ones that break science rules). Thank you for understanding. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:6106:DF8D:B600:C0F4 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * that's just stupid. Yes, science fiction always has to include spaceships and aliens....or time travel. Just because Jurassic Park contains what YOU consider sci-fi elements, doesn't mean it's sci-fi. That would be like calling Harry Potter fantasy because it has dragons and magic. No I don't understand because you're not talking sense. You're like those idiots that call Die Hard a christmas movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Jurassic Park is, in fact, a sci fi movie. Science Fiction is fiction where science plays an integral role in the plot. Star Wars is NOT science fiction, it's Space Fantasy. Jurassic Park IS science fiction because science is integral to the plot. You can get rid of all the aliens, spaceships, and interstellar travel in Star Wars and still retain the basic plot threads. If you took out the science from Jurassic Park, you are left with a fundamentally different movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:b900:6625:85b8:1e2b:f4be:8390 (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this discussion be better off held on either the talk pages for the novel, the film or the franchise? (just my 0.02¢) -  wolf  18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

March 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As promised, I have revoked talk page access. The reviewing administrator is free to reinstate it, even if they decline the unblock request. Although not part of the reason, it's very clear this editor still hasn't grasped WP:RS despite multiple people attempting to point them to this policy. If the current unblock request is declined, that leaves Spottedfeather with WP:UTRS. They will need to see a radically different approach to the unblock request, however. Nothing here has been anywhere near appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

RE your Email
I have read your email, you seem to be confused I have never interacted with you (at least via this account), I am not an admin so cannot do anything (i cannot evene see your UTRS appeals) Pinging admins to see if you've emailed them or are abusing the email function to gather random editors. . Tknifton (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

fixing ping. Tknifton (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not been emailed by this user. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also not been emailed by this user. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It just seems weird that they have emailed me (a non-admin) of all people to help with their unblock and talked in the email as if I have interacted with them. Tknifton (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I've now received an email. The user knows how they appeal their block. This isn't it. Email access revoked to prevent further abuse. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that I am not the original blocking admin here (that's, I just restricted talk page access and then eventually, email access. I see nothing in UTRS that would lead me to support an unblock, but don't object if you think it appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've read so many of these, I had to go back and reread. TBH, me neither in the follow up replies. Once again. Please read WP:RS and WP:DR and tell us how you failed to apply them to your editing before and how you would apply them going forward via UTRS. Thanks,  -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)