User talk:Escape Orbit

Escape Orbit

Please leave messages on my talk page.

I am human, so sometimes I make mistakes. If you have come here to complain about something I have done, please do not take it personally. Explain where you think I've gone wrong and I will happily explain what I was thinking when I did it. With your help I can rectify any errors I may have made. Thanks.

re: your message

I literally know him. They had another child a couple months ago. Can you please leave my edit alone. Cite your own damn proof that one of his children magically died. why is the burden of proof on me?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.177.143 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Because that is literally how Wikipedia works. Besides that, anyone can claim to know him, and maybe he doesn't want his children's life on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You add a source that proves it otherwise... what kind of standard is this? it applied in one direction and not the other?

This is asinine. Why would I randomly try to add a child if i didn't know him or didn't care?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.177.143 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It's quite logical. You want to add this, then you need to prove it. The burden is on you, not me. (You should read about Russell's teapot as an example.) Otherwise I could add a paragraph about him growing a second head, claim I'm his doctor, and demand you can't remove it until you source proof he hasn't, and I'm not. Does that sound like a workable policy?

You'd be surprised what people add to articles as jokes, mistakes or just mindless vandalism. I'm not saying you're wrong, or mistaken, or a vandal. But Stefano Bonfiglio would rightly complain if Wikipedia published incorrect information from random unknown people. That's why we have policies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Rotherham United Wiki page.

Why do you have to be so overbearingly pretentious and mind-numbingly pedantic? First you took it upon yourself to remove "what most fans consider to be Rotherhams' greatest league double" then you even disallow the single word "remarkable", leaving the remainder confusing and meaningless. If a lowly team like Rotherham scoring ten goals in two games against mighty Chelsea, including a six-nil thrashing, isn't a remarkable event then i'd like to know what is. This is not personal opinion - it is fact. Further, a survey of mature Millers fans would soon reveal that those games will never be forgotton. I've been a Rotherham supporter for almost all of my 57 years. My maternal Grandfather was Social club steward and catering manager at Millmoor from the early 1950's until his death - at Millmoor, behind the away-end goal as he walked from the players tunnel to the social club in the opposite corner - of a stroke In 1978. I know my club and I know it's fans. I suggest you scour the archives of newspaper "The Rotherham Advertiser" and discover for yourself what fans and professionals alike thought of Rotherhams' demolition and humiliation of Chelsea that season. Don't be petty. "Fantastic" or "Marvellous" would be personal opinion - I re-iterate that "remarkable" is more a fact. Kindly replace it otherwise my mentioning this "remarkable" event is pointless.(Steve Hoyland)2A02:C7D:12B8:5500:880E:4EFA:E34F:34C1 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not being opinion. Ensuring that articles follow policies and guidelines that are there for good reason.

"I suggest you scour the archives of newspaper "The Rotherham Advertiser" - Why don't you?

"I know my club and I know it's fans." - Anyone can claim to know, or be, anything anything on the internet. Wikipedia can't take anonymous people's word for things, it needs sources.

"This is not personal opinion - it is fact." Personal or not, it's an opinion. Wikipedia does not express opinions. If it is someone notable's opinion then please cite and attribute it.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

southern europe

hello Escape Orbit, I sincerely think that in this story you are wrong. I'm just asking you to look at what you erase and what you replace it with. The card you put was not on the page 3 days ago.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Joseph List

@Escape Orbit: Sorry, that was a bit harsh, I've retracted it. There was another editor going around changing the infobox. I thought you were that editor. Joseph Lister didn't hold any of the prizes and award and honour that highly at all. He never valued them, like other men of his age, perhaps did. There was only one which he considered worth getting and that was some old German society and there is plenty of evidence that shows that. He considered himself, above all else, a medical man and a scientist. That is all the evidence say, so I don't think it worth changing to officeholder. If it needs an office holder, then I think it worth putting a module in. It was a bit crass posting that. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

About the 2ch page

Hi.

I was going to create a page about a Russian imageboard named 2ch. This name is also an abbreviation of Japanese 2channel, now known as 5channel or 5ch. You reverted my edits in the redirect page 2ch, and I want to know how should I create the page in such case? If you don't think this name is suitable I'd like to ask you to create a page with proper name so I can fill it with content. Hmm1HmmHmm (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Family Video

i’m not quite sure why you keep changing my valid updates on this page. do you live under a rock? google Family Video and you will see my “source” i literally talk to Alex who runs all the social media for the business at Family Video i’ve been a Family Video influencer and insider for years now. i know my sources. please stop changing it. i can ask Alex to try and make it so it won’t be allowed to be changed again if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.210.122 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I keep reverting them because you don't source them. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet, that's not how Wikipedia works. And "Alex" doesn't own the article. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added a source, which states that the company is online only now. So not defunct, despite what your "influencer and insider" information claims. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to revert over you

Sorry about that revert on Marie Van Brittan Brown, but the article was a mess from earlier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Edith Granger image

Hello the reason I changed the image is because the previous image was taken from my website on Edith Granger. On my website, it has always stated below the image of Edith Granger that I had permission from Smith College Archives to use the image and any further use of the image requires their permission. The person who uploaded the image did not actually have permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audramelissa (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply on Audramelissa's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Apted

Given that you have removed "prolific" as peacocking, despite the fact it's been in the lead for over two years, shouldn't "critically acclaimed" also be removed to be consistent, as "acclaimed" is one of the words highlighted in [[1]] and "prolific" isn't? Rodericksilly (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it wasn't just 'prolific', it was 'one of the most prolific of his generation'. I wonder why it's been allowed to stand in the lead for so long, as it is clearly peacocking, i.e. talking up the subject without conveying any meaningful information. What counts as 'one of the most prolific'? The top 10? Top 3? Exactly against who are we comparing? What is "his generation"? Where is this all sourced from?

You may have a point about "critically acclaimed", but there is less an issue about it because it's far more factual. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Joanne Calderwoods wiki page

I made a change to where it says residence as it said Kilmarnock, Scotland as she now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe you took the residence column away completely. So i am I wondering why you decided to make this change.

There is no source that verifies her residence. Either in Kilmarnock or Las Vegas. Wikipedia shouldn't contain information that hasn't already been published in a reliable source, particularly when it's personal info she may not want made public. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued problems with User:78.33.40.254

Hi. Since you previously blocked User:78.33.40.254 two weeks ago, I thought I'd let you know that their vandalism has continued, for which they've continued receiving warnings. I think a longer block is in order. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Strove/strived

Re: your Carl Benz edit. Nothing wrong with strived, either. It's just a matter of personal preference. I thought strived sounded more elegant in that setting, is all. The matter is trivial.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Meerkats Collective Noun

I realise you reverted my edit because it's unsourced and that's fair enough. However my questions really is about the subjectivity of collective nouns and how they are invented at some point and who has the authority over them? I expect no-one. For example someone had to decide a group of giraffes was a 'tower' probably because they are tall. I just think that a group of meerkats being a periscope is accurate and it should be adopted. However, live science says its a mob, gang or clan and while that fits, clearly that was just whatever was used at the time. https://www.livescience.com/27406-meerkats.html#:~:text=Several%20meerkat%20families%20may%20live,dominant%20female%20leads%20the%20group. If I got live science to add periscope to their article and that was the source, would you also revert that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.187 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That depends on you persuading Live Science that you are an authority on naming Meercats, doesn't it? Convince them of that and you might get somewhere. Otherwise, you're right, a lot of animal collective nouns are nonsense, made-up, whimsy. But we have to go with what the sources say. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

CTI (producer) changes

These changes are not vandalism. I am putting correct songs on the applied artists.

No you are not. You are adding yourself as producer of a remix you made in your bedroom. Please take your self-promotion somewhere else. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

1. That was not needed 2. I am not CTI 3. Reported.

Of course you're not.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

William Lane Craig Revert

Sorry, my message in the edit was a bit terse. I wanted to explain a bit further. There was an effort about a year ago to redraft this article with the help of a mediator. It was largely successful and resulted in the current (more or less) text of the page. The Came quote was discussed at length and the group decided to leave it in for two primary reasons. The Telegraph source thought him worthy to quote and, at the time, he was a distinguished (their term) professor of religion at the university which was supposed to host the Craig/Dawkins debate.

Again, sorry for the terse revert, hope this helps clarify. Squatch347 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The travelling salesman problem

How is that not the solution, whereby predestination and "the arrow of time" are being considered synonymous. Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if it's the solution. You are adding original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not interested in unbrainwashing you in relation to the information warfare occurring on Wikipedia. Maybe that is what has to happen.

What makes you think that Wiki page is an authority? Have you experienced pain and suffering for refusing to accept its authority? Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

OK, so you are harassing me, which is against the ToS... Right? Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you went offline. Take a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#No_primary_sources%3F Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so there is a bunch of infowar where users are behaving as malicious robots and vandalizing Wikipedia. I do not know if I can resolve this through Wikipedia channels of communication today. The No original research talk page I made was deleted, and admins appear brainwashed, too. My first thought was to just hypercube (https://dennisfrancisblewett.blogspot.com/2021/04/technique-in-discussion-hypercubing.html?m=1) these dudes out and ignore this Wiki issue. So, I might be walking away personally from this. Maybe spacetime will gave me come back.

I do not have to accept your views if how Wikipedia should be managed. There is obviously a Wikipedia user base issue here.

of how* Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever that means. Editor wanted policy on WP:OR changed so they could add more of the above to articles. Blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fast fashion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

re Paula Robison entry

I have expanded the footnotes and reinstated the Private Life section. I don't understand why you deleted it, as such sections are usual in Wikipedia Biographies.

Best,

Michael

Reply on User_talk:Michael291. Unsourced and/or incorrectly sourced personal info. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Billboard

Because that artist was credited in the drop box I added them to pages. Added by mistake into awards.

Recent revert in "pupusa" page

You are reverting my edit claiming that I'm replacing "sourced material". Have you checked the "sources"? An article from Univision that doesn't provide any kind of historical guarantee i.e. The recent claim from some hondurans that pupusas are from there are nothing but a big trolling from them, and now, you are participating actively on that trolling. What is your concept of "sourced material"?

Have you read the article? There is an entire section on the dispute over its origins. The lead is supposed to reflect the contents of the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

5,000 people can't operate 41,000 restaurants

How about instead of getting me banned from posting for pointing out a massive error how about you put the crack pipe down and find the correct information.

Chur, yaboi Rewbs.

Subway (restaurant) operates on a franchise basis. Those working in the restaurants are not employees of the company.

As for "getting you banned", I've no idea what you're talking about. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Adult alternate chart

I'm curious as to why you removed my current #1 edit while the current #1 sentence in the main article of the Billboard Hot 100 chart remains. Marioedit8 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If something similar is in another article, that should probably be removed too, IMO. Wikipedia shouldn't lead articles with fleeting information that changes every week, is unlikely to by updated every week, and isn't in itself particularly notable to the article subject. Is there something notable about this week's #1 in relation to the chart. Or is it just a number one this week, like any other week? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Paul is dead /* In popular culture */ paul is live cover art

You reverted my edit with the comment "Not Fair Use of copyright image". Please note that I did not upload the image, which has been in Wikipedia for many years with a fair use notice here. Its use on the page Paul is dead should be acceptable under the same justification, wouldn't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehushtan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not that it has been uploaded, but how it is being used once it has been uploaded. "Fair Use" means the image can be used for discussion about the album itself. It can't be used for other things. That means it's fine on the article about the album, but use in other places is questionable.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

But my entry in Paul is dead is part of the discussion of the album itself. The very title of the album is Mr. McCartney's own reference to the hoax/rumor/conspiracy theory discussed on that page. The page includes the image from Abbey Road, with notes related to the "Paul is dead" issue. Why not the image for "Paul is Live"? Nehushtan (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But I'd say that neither should be used, since the article is not about either album, but rather about how some people interpreted what appeared on the album cover. It might be worth seeking other views on the article talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne.

Hello. If please that "Makes no sense", then should the information be allowed to remain on Wiktionary as it has for done considerable time ? Heath St John (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't say 'lang' is from the Middle English 'syne', that makes no sense. It says 'lang' and 'syne' are from Middle English. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I can't conceive how I came to type what I put on the page, when your reply is what I intended, instead. It can only have been the influence of all the tumbling different thoughts due to recent, continuing, unpleasant events in my life. Thanks very much. I'll type what I intended to, now. Heath St John (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Report

Please block Harinath Krishnamurthy from editing Wikipedia , because , he moved my user page தனீஷ் to some unwanted obscene name User:Mother Fucker , you can know by visit and check edit history of my user page , please do block the user. Thank you. தனீஷ் (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

friendlyjordies vandalism

I removed sources that did not meet the standards of reliability required by WP:BLP. They were simply not reliable sources. Either find better sources, or review the content. We cannot have biographical information based solely on some wanker running a YouTube channel under a pseudonym, or a mention in some lightweight funny paper. If the information is indeed notable, then it will have been published by a sufficiently reliable source. You are at liberty to seek further input at WP:RSN if you think that any of the sources I removed were appropriate, and I will abide by consensus there. But geez, if you think Crikey.com is good enough for BLP, then you really need to look at wikipolicy and chew over what it says. I will regard any attempt to restore these sources without consensus as vandalism. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)