User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 14

April 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at San Bernardino, California. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''You simply renamed the link to the 2015 shooting to "North Park Elementary School shooting". pretty silly to edit war when you are dead wrong. It isn't even a debatable fact. You made a quite proper link to the 2015 San Bernardino attack appear as if it was a link to the North Park Elementary School shooting. and then edit warred over it.'' John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * 1) Don't template the regulars, and 2) You didn't even read the article, did you? You only read the diff, and mistakenly assumed I changed the target of the link. The article states See also: 2015 San Bernardino attack and North Park Elementary School shooting. It doesn't state 2015 San Bernardino attack which links to the school shooting. Look at it. My God. Based on your edit summary it seems that you don't even know North Park Elementary School shooting is an existing article. You seem to be editing way too fast and you didn't even check properly. starship.paint ~  KO   07:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:4
Yeah, it sure took a while, but we finally have it. And we were the first ones to do it jointly, so that's pretty cool. REEEEEbbon Salminen  (talk''')  11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You too. REEEEEbbon Salminen   (talk''')  04:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41466116. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş
Hi! Thank you very much for your efforts and patience to improve the article Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş. It wouldn't reach this quality level without your continuous work. CeeGee 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - you're very welcome :) good luck with the article if you are pursuing it further! starship.paint ~  KO  11:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Jason Chee (para-athlete)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire
Thanks for your edits on Bigalı Mehmet Çavuş. Would you be interested in working on more Ottoman Empire related articles in the future?--The Man No With Name (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Muhamad Ridhwan
Hello! Your submission of Muhamad Ridhwan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Makeandtoss (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Muhamad Ridhwan
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In the Moor(e)s
I did a bunch of edits to the Roy Moore article simultaneously with yourself. I didn't even realize were were both doing it and am amazed that we didn't step on each other's toes while we were working away. Thanks for your efforts in cleaning it up. Articles like these rapidly grow "organically" and sometimes virtually explode with edits. Please take a look at what I've done, if you have time and you think my edits could stand improvement. I added some material from a few weeks ago that hadn't made it into the article, and tried to move the growing mass of material about the girls from the lede to the appropriate section. You don't seem all that "retired," but it's all relative, I guess. Activist (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - seeing your contributions I see you mean the main article, not the allegations one. I have barely edited anything on Moore outside of the allegations. Those other things are not within my interest right now because I have exams to study for (and I am not American). For your edits, most seem fine on the surface (I won't check what the sources said). My main concern is the writing "Moore had pursued and/or sexually assaulted numerous teenage girls as young as 14". Because pursuing 16 year olds is legal, even if immoral - and IIRC only one woman was below 14 16. I am cautious that this statement (for those not reading carefully) paints a worse picture than what is alleged like "pursued numerous 14 year olds" or "sexually assaulted numerous 14 year olds" or "sexually assaulted numerous teenage girls" starship.paint ~  KO  11:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did mean the main article. I hadn't even looked at the allegations-only article until I saw that you mentioned it. I'm not aware of any allegations (so far) that Moore had approached or assaulted any girl under 14. The other teens I'm aware of have been 16 through 19. The oldest complaining was the 28 y/o at his law office. His wife was 24 when they married and he was 38. After the first two women disclosed his advances or assaults, I expected more "alleged" victims to quickly "come out of the woodwork," much in the manner of what happened to Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey, or Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was running for governor of California. Also, Moore has been called a "pedophile." That's not a term that would be correctly used for a sexual attraction on the part of an adult to a girl who has reached puberty. That doesn't mean he's not one, just that no such allegations and confirmations have yet been aired. The encounter with the 14-year-old, as described, was a sexual assault by Alabama state law. He is said to have groped her over her underwear, feeling her breasts and genitals, allegedly. He also is alleged to have tried to place her hand over his genitals but she said she pulled away. Lastly, I used the term "numerous" because the major concern is about his past relationships with teenagers and hardly a day goes by when another woman steps forward to add to the charges, so I figured that would be a more durable description than a precise quantification. Is English your first language? If not, you're remarkably competent in it. Lastly, your clarifying the language about Byrne was very helpful. Byrne indeed claimed that he, himself, was a creationist, and the text was ambiguous before your edit. Activist (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - yeah English is my first language. I made a mistake in my own post above regarding the age. One below 16, who was 14. My other concerns remain as above. There was only one under 16 but a poor reading of "Moore had pursued and/or sexually assaulted numerous teenage girls as young as 14". may produce thoughts of many 14 year olds. I have no doubt that the sentence is factually correct - I just think that readers with a poorer grasp of English may think the accusations are worse than they already are (are there multiple 14-year olds? were they all sexually assaulted?). Just an issue with the phrasing. No comment on 'pedophile' - never came to my mind, not saying he is one. starship.paint ~  KO  14:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest The allegations collectively portrayed Moore as having pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulting some of them, of which one was as young as 14. There were also similar allegations made by women in their 20s. starship.paint ~  KO  14:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If another editor hasn't already done so, I'll make the change, since if you do so you would be restricted from making another revert within 24 hours. I wasn't thinking about the confusion that might come with respect to someone for whom English is not their first language. Thanks so much for the input. Activist (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede paragraph in question had been changed by another editor before I wrote the above. I modified the sentences in question within the spirit of, and along the lines you suggested, though not verbatim. On television today, Moore's actions have been characterized as "pedophilia." At this point, I think that's a semantic overreach. Thanks again for your helpful input. 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - check the lede now? What do you think? :) starship.paint ~  KO  13:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have read the Talk page before I first edited, though there was no harm done. There was prior discussion about the issues we raised. Some nitwit reverted my edits to the lede. He (?) thought that it needed a specific number of victims, though that's changing like the tab on a taxicab meter as it's constantly rolling over. He thought it was also only about sexual assaults on teenagers as if those over 19 didn't really count. Ugh! Another insisted on adding Moore's long time defense attorney's ludicrous claim that the yearbook dedication was forged. This sort of thing generates feelings of futility. I'll take a look at what hash the article may be now. Thanks. Activist (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Epico and Hunico for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Epico and Hunico is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Epico and Hunico until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.User talk:Feedback12:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : starship.paint ~  KO 

to
 * : starship.paint ~  KO  

—Anomalocaris (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)