User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 23

Congratulations
It took seven years, multiple concussions, zombies, Kimchee and heart failure, but your guy won, must have wanted it more. The Authority is dead. Long live Blackpool Combat Club! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - not only in storyline, but in real life, he's lost. His trainers, his staff, his wrestlers. So many purged.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget his hair, his throne and his band. Evolution is a cruel mistress. He's still got the better wife for now, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (I meant Motörhead by "his" band, but RIP to The DX Band as well, and so long Jim Johnston.) InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Howdy hello! Since you are a prolific creator of pages which seem up to snuff, I have gone and given you the WP:AUTOPATROLLED right, meaning your pages will be...automatically patrolled. Keep up the good work! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - I wouldn't consider creations prolific, but thank you for this!  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Heard
Hi, isn’t the practice on WP to discuss controversial topics on Talk page be re-adding material after a revert? Especially since this is a BLP. You’ve given no proper rationale for re-adding the content.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - I've done far more than that. It has not only been re-added, but expanded to include further actions by the subject of the article, and better sources have been added. The material is now more relevant, and better sourced, than before. I've even put in her lawyer's explanation of the matter (and if it wasn't relevant to Heard, why is her lawyer explaining it?) Unless a Consensus required restriction is placed, I don't think I've run too foul of any practices here.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok then. Personally, I don’t think it’s wise to start drastically altering BLPs during an ongoing trial, esp. without explaining your rationale. This is a very controversial topic, hence experienced editors should understand to pay perhaps even more attention to rules and general courtesy than normally. Furthermore, adding a description of a testimony to Heard’s article before it’s added to the trial’s article is quite odd, IMHO even concerning. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * - (a) I'm #2 in terms of authorship and #9 in terms of edits to the much more controversial Donald Trump. I'm #3 in terms of authorship and #4 in terms of edits to Trial of Derek Chauvin, and I'm #1 in authorship and edits to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Three controversial articles, and I've come out of there unscathed. Do you think I could have done that without adherence to rules and courtesy? (b) adding a description of a testimony to Heard’s article before it’s added to the trial's article is quite odd, IMHO even concerning. - it's not concerning when you take into account that whether Heard donated or not is important independent of the trial. It's important to her activism and charity - obviously an important part of her article. Furthermore, I’m not even the first editor to introduce the ACLU testimony content into the BLP, so why are you blaming me? I’m just reacting to what someone else already started, not sure why there’s a need to gatekeep.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m gatekeeping because I’m asking about your rationale for adding material presented in a controversial trial that is ongoing? You’re the one who reverted my revert without discussion or rationale, hence why I’m asking. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * - if it wasn’t clear enough, the revert and subsequent addition is because the content as a whole is relevant, important and well-sourced.  starship .paint  (exalt) 23:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to say great job on starting up this page. Great to document an important case like this. Tropetroop29 (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you - it is a community effort.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 08:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Starship.paint

Thank you for creating List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 3000-4999.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * - funny you should say that, when you were against splitting?  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment was very brief.....what I had in mind was acknowledging / thanking you for your work, thinking that the work is in a very useful area, implicitly letting you know that I marked it as reviewed. I wasn't to indicate that I felt that it was the optimum way to handle these so it isn't a conflict.   Thanks for your work. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - funnily enough, it isn't really my work at all, I just did a copy and paste. I have zero expertise in ISO, I was only trying to split the largest article on Wikipedia. Cheers.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

repeatedly claimed that she had already donated
(great work on the Wikipedia articles btw)

I've seen what the cited articles say but I'm finding it difficult to believe the repeatedly claimed bit when they don't raise their own citations and quotations. I only know of the one RTL claim which I've just edited into Amber's page and this was the one claim that was cited within the Depp/Heard trial. If there were others I'd guess that they would have been mentioned. This search:
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Until+2020%2C+Heard+%22repeatedly%22+claimed+to+have+donated+the+entire+%247+million+settlement+to+charity

comes up with a lot of related refs to things done repeatedly but not related to donation. I'm dubious. GregKaye 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - thank you for the praise. I will research more on this when I am free. It will be my immediate focus when I am next free to edit Wikipedia.  starship .paint  (exalt) 23:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - at present, I know, and have added to the article, two instances - October 2018 to RTL, and next 2020 to the UK court. Technically, she repeated herself once. I have rephrased, removing "repeatedly".  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad. I'd missed the bit in Nicol's UK trial decision paper where he referred to "Ms Heard's evidence that she had given that sum away to charity."  That's mad. GregKaye 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - well, it appears that Heard simply equates "pledged" to "donated". That's what she said in her cross-examination, which I just watched to learn more about the issue.  starship .paint  (exalt) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - the two TWAN HUYS references are still there, just shifted higher up to avoid overcite. Four references is quite ugly.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 16:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd really like to get RS witness statements or a transcript for AH. The best I've got is Exhibit AH3 which present "the entire amount of my divorce settlement was donated to charity" text, with other statements accessible here. GregKaye 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - that's the correct primary source, and it is essentially a transcript. I have found additional RS to rework that part about her statement and what the London judge commented.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was just looking back at the statements which are dated 15 Dec 2019, 19 Feb 2020, 26 Feb 2020 and 19 Mar 2020 and all fit a style of having been written. This was after noticing ref to: 92: The Defendants called the following witnesses: Amber Heard (in person);... in the trial as decided on 2 November 2020. Not sure what happened to the transcript. Maybe it's another thing to look out for. GregKaye 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - sorry, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. What potential change could this result in?  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

- it may not be cherry-picking.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How was the displayed "saved from:https://i.redd.it/w5bbcdjzzz391.jpg" image achieved?
 * It's a genuine question. Was it compiled through an automated search or by manually piecing it together? GregKaye 08:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - it's apparently from Twitter, I'm guessing a person pieced those together (technically) with a program. No idea how the articles were found.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether consciously or not, I think it's cherry picking. Someone may gather a range of content and then pick out preferred options. It depends on the criteria in operation.  The last edit into the lead involved specific choice of citations to justify the backlash argumentation.  I'm pleasantly surprised it started with 'just' four citations but that morphed to seven. GregKaye 08:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - it is apparent to me that mainstream media editorial thought / opinion section is significantly pro-Heard, pro-female domestic violence advocates, pro-MeToo. It is unfortunate, but it is what it is.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - oh, Greg, and this removal was the correct decision, you really shouldn't be posting that sort of stuff. It is not for us to discuss if she is in denial or not.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My edits are balanced and fair. I'm concerned.  My view was that we might be pushing a debatable point related to blp in a less than helpful way.  It's fine if we agree to differ.  GregKaye 10:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hugely disappointed
With this. Material which fails WP:NOTNEWS so thoroughly should not be spun out, but trimmed down until it can be included in the main article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - you can protest, but who is doing the work? No one was.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's WP:NORUSH. There is however very much harm in misleading our readers that we have encyclopedic information when in fact we just have a compilation of WP:NOTNEWS reports. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can keep citing WP:NOTNEWS, but this trial is not a WP:ROUTINE event. News articles about the trial generated more social media interactions per article in the United States than all other significant news topics, including abortion, Ukraine, inflation, Elon Musk. and Joe Biden. People cared, news organizations cared. WP:NOTGOSSIP doesn't apply for a trial involving $10 million, and this is something assuredly our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 13:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * this trial is not a WP:ROUTINE event. yes, which is why it gets an article, not an excessively detailed one. News articles about the trial generated more social media interactions per article in the United States than all other significant news topics, Coverage on Wikipedia is not based on social media interactions, but on proper reliable sources (not celebrity gossip) and considering what kind of stuff happens on social media, that is very much a good thing. Special pleading that WP:NOT doesn't apply to this doesn't seem convincing (and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a potent reminder of that, too). An encyclopedia is a "summary of knowledge", and I don't see what knowledge or what summary the excessively detailed testimony brings. I'll also note the obvious issue of WP:RECENTISM and how people are likely to all but forget this within a few years. our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest also seems to stem from an inherently WP:BIAS position - we don't give waivers from our content guidelines just because some celebrity gossip is popular in the USA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - plainly, we are not going to agree on this. You think it's a big problem, so, what are you actually going to do to solve it, other than pointing out the existence of the problem?  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Apology
I would like to apologise for reverting one of your edits twice on the Depp v Heard page, it was wrong of me to do so without discussing with you first.Originalcola (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - no big deal and no apology needed to me, at least. Sometimes I revert too with my explanation in the edit summary, so why should I hold that behaviour against anyone?  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

 * Thank you for your appreciation,, I am happy to have been able to help.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Arrest of Randal Worcester
Hello! Your submission of Arrest of Randal Worcester 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Iran–Greece naval incident
Hello, Starship.paint Source errors have been fixed.Please tell me your opinion.Aye1399 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Arrest of Randal Worcester
Vanamonde 12:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ACE2022
Thanks for the correction. Strictly, user pages must not be edited without discussion unless the content is egregious, but good catch 😉 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)