User talk:Sundayclose

Please read this box first!

Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To start a NEW conversation on this page, please CLICK THIS LINK.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Not discouraged.. at least

"Criticism sections are discouraged" on Wikipedia is simply not correct. MOS:FILM allows sections on the controversies of a film, if there is— and there is in this film. To just label it "Marketing" and "International release", when the whole subsection talks about the controversy, is misleading. I don't see how talking about criticisms are unwarranted and I see a huge NPOV here, but that's a whole other thought I won't plunge into for now. GeraldWL 23:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Take a couple of minutes to read WP:CRIT. Additionally, there was a "Controversy" header in the past in the article, which was removed. If you disagree, get consensus at Talk:Cuties. Any discussion should be there rather than my talk page so the entire Wikipedia community can be aware of it. Sundayclose (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have plans to bring an RfC since I will be semi-active due to family reasons. Just here to say that MOS:FILM allows controversy sections— the generic notion that criticisms are not encouraged can be misleading. GeraldWL 08:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that I'm unable to indent my reply as I'm on the app version. I would also note that WP:CRIT does not necessarily prohibit criticisms, in fact it encourages coverage of two sides to the story in a nonpartisan fashion, which I don't think a Crit section is non-NPOV. GeraldWL 09:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I never said WP:CRIT prohibits controversy sections. I said it discourages them. The reason is that it attracts excess. The current criticisms in the article are well-covered. Unless new controversies emerge, there is no need to seek more criticism. WP:CRIT also is a broader guideline applying to all articles unlike MOS:FILM. I disagree that the header adds anything useful, certainly not enough to outweigh the disadvantages of such a header.

In any event, let's continue this at Talk:Cuties if you pursue this further. An RfC generally is not the next step in dispute resolution. You should start a discussion on the article talk page, then if there's no consensus in a reasonable period of time, WP:3O is preferred, although you certainly are entitled to start an RfC. Also keep in mind that an RfC description should be brief and neutral, usually in the form of a question, such as "Should Cuties have a 'Controversy' section header?", in which the answer to the question is not suggested. Your opinions (as well as mine) are placed after that descriptions to avoid bias. If you start a talk page discussion it would be wise to copy our discussion there so we don't have to repeat ourselves.

By the way, your suggestion that I have "a huge NPOV" is way off base. I can work toward following Wikipedia policies and guidelines without being swayed by POV. There have been attempts to insert POV into the article that have been removed by numerous editors (including me), but I haven't made POV edits. If you look at my edits and talk page discussion, I want a balanced and proportionate coverage of the criticisms. The film has been controversial, and some criticisms have been overblown by people such as politicisms, while others have been minimized by Netflix, such as Neflix's attempts to selectively target criticisms on social media as copyright violations. Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, as I said, I don't have plans for DR, RfC, or anything similar as I just don't have the time to. On "WP:CRIT also is a broader guideline applying to all articles", that simply isn't true-- CRIT is an essay, not a guideline, and MOS:FILM is a guideline that applies to all film articles, which as far as I'm aware of, Cuties is a film. To call it a criticism when it has been blown up to a controversy--regardless of whether or not we think it is an overblown, it's still a controversy-- I think is misleading. However as I said, I don't see any problems with either and will bow down to the dispute. GeraldWL 17:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Neither WP:CRIT nor MOS:FILM is a policy. Both involve considerable flexibility. But that's why we have the consensus process in situations like this. I'm not suggesting that you "bow down". Dispute resolution is certainly available to you. If you open a discussion at the article talk page, you might find support. I'll respect any consensus that has enough support. But that's your choice, now and in the future. Sundayclose (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, I would usually be happy to make RfCs and engage with a wider spectrum of editors and establish a consensus. However I consider my edits trivial, and the current is already fine. This is the end of 2020, and I wouldn't be spending much time on Wikipedia-- I am spending more time with my family. GeraldWL 17:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Lenore E. Walker

Ok, Sundayclose, I think we need to get some things in the clear. I've been reading your talk page and you've been accused numerous times of reverting without giving proper reason and for being extremely rude and blunt, and frankly, I have to agree with all of those users. First of all, I do not disagree with you in the slightest that content on Wikipedia must be adequately sourced and should be within the given source, and secondly, there must be no bias in the content. Those two points, I have no argument with you whatsoever, which is why I did my best to contribute to the "Reaction to the OJ Verdict" page and find proper sources, almost all of which have been added by myself or other users, particularly the area about comparing judges Lance Ito and Hiroshi Fujisaki.

However, I saw just now that you reverted my edit on Lenore E. Walker, where I provided the very same sources as on the OJ page as part of her career and made it as clear as possible that this was a defining moment in her life where her career was ruined, just like on the OJ Simpson page where it talks about the murder and robbery trials that changed his image in the minds of many who saw him as a murderer and a criminal. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia that are relatively short but have a main section about a primary subject which the person is most famous for. If Lenore Walker truly is famous for more stuff, then the right thing to do regarding "weight" would be to find it, not revert the edit where she betrayed her beliefs and defended a known wife beater for money.

And I do not appreciate your repeated "final warnings" and threats towards me, which is what other users have accused you of, and this has proven to be the final straw for me, where I see that you are apparently stalking me on Wikipedia to revert my edits for the sake of it instead of being more creative, which is what I am trying to do. I will not tolerate it, and if you threaten me once again when you know perfectly well that I am trying to contribute instead of vandalise, I will report you to an administrator, because I'm fed up of walking on eggshells around you.

Good day. Jienum (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jienum: Your personalized comments are inappropriate. Discuss article content, not editors. If your intention is to come back here with false accusations of "stalking" or commentary about my talk page, I am requesting that you not make any more comments here. Feel free to take it up at WP:ANI insted of here. If you want to discuss the issue of my edit, the proper place to do that is the article's talk page, not my talk page, so the entire Wikipedia community can be aware of it WP:WEIGHT is a legitimate reason to trim content in an article. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to follow proper dispute resolution procedures. Your edit was reverted. Instead of editing warring you should get consensus on the talk page. Read WP:BRD Sundayclose (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have done just that, but I've reverted the article and instead challenged your version. I've just about had enough of arguing with you over your obsession with reverting instead of being more creative. And yes, what you are doing is called stalking. Look it up. Jienum (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jienum: Again, don't post on this talk page if you only intend to make personal comments. Sundayclose (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to Hold your hand (References)

I would like to send my sources on this song. I have a few comments from Paul McCartney with sources. One from 1964 which I think is a lot more important than an interview from 1980. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Larsson 77: I'm not sure what you mean by "send sources". See WP:CITE for information about citing sources. But before you do anything carefully read WP:RS for details about what is considered a reliable source. Just because you have access to something that says something about the song doesn't mean it's reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Sundayclose (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Disruptive Editing in Revolver

Hi sundayclose,

I just wanted to respond to your comment on my talk page. I want to apologize for any disruptive editing I may have caused. However, I am also wondering how my edit was poorly sourced since there were citations for the Personnel section (I was only clarifying) and while not on the same page, the page for “She Said She Said” would have had the same info and sources?

Thanks, EPBeatles EPBeatles (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

amanda bynes

this is not disruptive that shes teasing a single yesterdayVitopavlovivit (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit is unsourced. Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a text message. Your edit is written in slang ("teasing a single") with no regard for rules of grammar and capitalization; and that applies to most of your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

IP inserting AIDS conspiracy theories

Hi Sundayclose, You reverted edits by an IP on the article for Didanosine. I've noticed that this IP has been inserting their conspiracy theories on numerous articles, most recently denying the AIDS deaths of Tommy Morrison, Keith Haring and Rock Hudson…the list goes on. I'm not an active Wikipedia user and don't know the proper procedures but maybe you'd like to take care of this problem or alert the proper editors – I would hate to have this dangerous misinformation stand. Thanks! Antithum (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sign Language

Hi, I see what you mean about language. It's confusing in the article as you do refer to baby sign language which also doesn't meet the definition of a language, and I see this is made clear on the separate 'baby sign language' article, which is confusingly still headed 'baby sign language'

The confusion I imagine is because 'ordinary people' will misuse the term language. It is a shame there is no place in this or any article for the very common and useful uses of hand signs to aid communication that are used by so many in noisy workplaces, sports, protests, armed forces and on video calls, which is where my interest lies. I am using this now on a daily basis and have been asked several times 'is it on wikipedia'. These many uses of signs, even though they are not languages, are an important aspect of communication and society/culture and many people will say they are using 'sign language' when they use them. Could we not explain this and still give these important uses of signs a home somewhere on wikipedia?

I'm very new to wiki so apologies, i'm probably doing this all wrong, but keen to learn John Sandbanks (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@John Sandbanks: Thanks for your message, and welcome to Wikipedia. No apology necessary. The confusion about the distinctions between signs and sign language is not unusual on several Wikipedia articles. If often stems from a misunderstanding that assumes someone who uses sign language is simply using gestures or communicating in English with signs, when in reality English and American Sign Language are very different languages. The only article that I know of that comes close to the issue you are concerned with is Manually coded language, but even that article focuses on entire language systems instead of use of a few self-made signals. I'm placing a welcome template on your talk page that will give you some links for newcomers. Happy editing! Sundayclose (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Eminem

Hey Sundayclose, so I see that you reverted my edits on Eminem's article. The information was regarding when Eminem met his high school friend Manix at age 14. However, I just talked to DJ Butter Fingers (former member of Eminem's group Bassmint Productions) on his YouTube page. He says that Eminem met him and Manix a week after he turned 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshoward888 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jameshoward888: A YouTube page and your personal conversations are not reliable sources. I could upload a video to YouTube and claim that Eminem is Elvis, but that doesn't make it true. Read WP:V and WP:RS. Don't restore without a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Okay, but I can guarantee that this is the real DJ Butter Fingers. He's uploading lost tracks from Eminem's early days, songs that haven't been heard before. Jameshoward888 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jameshoward888: No offense, but your personal guarantees are meaningless. Moreover, DJ Butter Fingers is not more reliable than the sources cited in the article. And even if he was, his video says nothing about your claims. So what we have is your unverifiable claim with a minimally reliable source and a link to a video that doesn't even relate to your claim. Again, read WP:V and WP:RS. There are reasons for these policies, and it would serve you well if you read them. If we didn't have them anyone could add anything anywhere on Wikipedia. Then it's no longer an encyclopedia; it's a chaotic message board for millions of people. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

User:DollyReszka

This user appears to be a major problem. I've seen you've warned him about adding unconfirmed, extras to the Hillbilly Elegy page. He isn't taking that seriously. He's done it numerous times. Also, the name he's adding is himself and he's using his page as an advertisement adding himself in films through filmographies without references. Should he be reported? If so, can you do this? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you sent him warnings. Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately he added himself again after all of your warnings. It's been reverted by another editor fortunately. However, it definitely appears that the warnings did not resonate as he has ignored them. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: You're right he's not taking this seriously. I just reverted again. If he adds it again I'll make a 3RR report. I can't revert any more today, as I don't want to go over 3RR myself. Keep an eye on the article, but be careful not to revert more than three times in 24 hours. I don't won't you to get blocked as a result of my report. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Sure enough he added himself to the cast again. I reverted it. You can certainly report him now. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:3RRN#User:DollyReszka reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: ). If he does it again, either of us can add to the report. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

I noticed the reverting changes you've been making on page Yara Shahidi I noticed that my edit to Yara Shahidi has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder - User:Sundayclose - I understand but an article a page or any media evidence that speaks or learns about someone needs a description and Yara Shahidi is a American actress, model, and activist that is what a new reader of user should notice once entrance to page. If we involve ourselves in an edit war can result in you or me being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhili (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lhili: There are no circumstances under which you are allowed to use a copyrighted image of a living person, including your bizarre claim that "media evidence that speaks or learns about someone". You clearly don't understand copyright and Wikipedia's policies about copyright. And it's not edit warring if I remove a copyright violation. It's you who is in jeopardy of getting a block on two counts: copyright violation and edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

JFK Jr

I added a talk discussion and also made some subsequent edits to remove stuff that was unsoured or editorialising. I do think this rubbish is given far too much space in the article.

Thanks

Pipsally (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Hello Sunadyclose.

I want to apologize for my unsourced editing. I'm really sorry. Wikipedia means a lot to me as an editor and I don't want to be banned. Thank you. :)

Rushtheeditor (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sundayclose reported by User:Greenknight dv (Result: ). Thank you. Greenknight dv (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Amor Prohibido

Can you not undo my revisions until after I am done? There is a reason why I placed an 'inuse' tag to prevent further work from vanishing before submitting it. You're undoing every edit I made to a specific section, if there is something you need to remove then remove it, don't undo the entire text. Furthermore, the last undo edit was unnecessary as you basically reintroduced added wording while I was removing repetitive texts that were best merged for better flow. – jona ✉ 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@AJona1992: Sorry, but if you keep writing awkward sentences I will change them as I see them. I don't want to wait until you have made hundreds of edits before having to review them all. Some of your writing has problems with clear and grammatical expression. As for "better flow", please read WP:ELVAR. Sundayclose (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you need to wait until I am done with the article which is why I placed the 'inuse' tag; what if I was working on a large paragraph and it wasn't saved after working hours on it? The fact that you seem to not care and easily (and continue to) revert hours of edits, while the article was undergoing a revamp, shows your lack of WP:EQ the 'inuse' tag explicitly says to refrain from editing to avoid edit conflicts. The article isn't even that big to make "hundreds of edits" and it's not like I am adding or removing content that is controversial at all, you're acting like I am vandalizing this article, which I've spent almost a year on. If you disagree with my edits, that's fine and I would be more appreciated if you brought that up on the talk page for us to discuss it rather than revert hours of work because you feel as though it is wrong. – jona ✉ 02:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@AJona1992: I didn't say you vandalized the article. I said you have some problems with your writing style. There's a big difference. An "in use" tag does not confer on you any ownership of the article, even temporarily. It does not forbid others from editing the article. The onus to take issues to talk is just as much on you as it is on me; feel free to discuss any of my edits on the talk page. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't have a lot of time on Wikipedia, so I do things when I can; and that includes cleaning up some of your edits. Because I don't have much time, there will be times when I don't monitor the article. Those times might be good opportunities for you to edit the article if you don't like me changing problem edits as you make them. Sundayclose (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say I own the article in any shape or form, I was simply pointing out your lack of EQ based on the 'inuse' tag's description to refrain from edit conflicts. Well of course the article might include lousy wording, I am not saying I am perfect. I wasn't done with reading and editing the article. I might have found those errors once I did a re-read of the article and definitely would have removed them. I will agree that some of those errors might even go over my head and I am not upset with you fixing them at all. The only point I am making was the deliberate actions you made that could have erased hours of work within seconds because you found errors on an article that was actively being worked on. Also, Suzette didn't say she liked "Ya No" she favored "Si Una Vez", but because of your recent edits it now reads differently than what she actually said. – jona ✉ 02:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@AJona1992: I have not "erased hours of work within seconds". That hyperbole does nothing to advance your point. I modified my edit about Suzette. Feel free to change it, BUT don't use the phrase "the latter", which you seem to be fond of using. It's bad writing style. Sundayclose (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tiger Woods edit reversion

Hey there,

I seem to have added a source at the same time you reverted my edit due to my lack of sourcing for the information I added. I don’t have any experience with my edits being reverted so I just wanted to be clear that I didn’t intend to edit war or anything. Dynen (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dynen: No problem. Thanks for the message. I always revert an unsourced edit to a BLP because I never know whether the source will be added. Sundayclose (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

van zandt

i think mentioning the speech is important cause it was an important event for van zandt and one of his biggest speeches. the link is one of the ones in the sources. i can cite it using that source.

@Raja1011: Sorry, but I can't understand what you write. Lack of a source is not the only issue. The issue of apartheid is important, but where he discussed it is not. I'm not sure why you think it's "one of his biggest speeches". In any event, don't restore with consensus on the talk page and a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ron Howard

Hello there, I thought I'd bring this discussion here since you seem passionate about it. I decided to create a filmography page since his filmography was so dense it was clouding up his page. It is now being discussed on Ron Howard's talk page for approval, I wasn't expecting for it to take this long for approval. I encourage you to discuss regarding a creation of the talk page so we can approve the page therby not making it necessary for you to "clean up the mess". I wasn't creating a mess I was cleaning one. Please do not respond on my talk page. The One I Left (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: You were "cleaning" a mess by making the entire filmography disappear for days, possibly longer? Yes, you created a mess. It would have been simple to wait, regardless of how long you thought it might take. My issue isn't with the fact that you want to create a filmography page. It is your thoughtless removal from Ron Howard before the filmography article could be posted, and (even worse) not restoring it when you realized there would be a delay. That is creating a mess that you want others to clean up. Since you don't seem to have figured this out over the last two years let me clue you in to a basic principle of editing Wikipedia: Wikipedia is written for readers, not editors. In this case, you are the editor, not the reader. Sundayclose (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

LHO

I'm thinking we need to have an edit notice or at least a comment in the article to at least slow down the editors who want to put in "allegedly" on bogus "he wasn't tried" grounds. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I completely agree. Although some will ignore it, I think most people will at least go to the talk page before making the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It would need to be concise, something like "Please don't insert "alleged" without reviewing the talkpage archives and gaining consensus for the change", or we'd need an FAQ and an admonishment to read that first. Acroterion (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Either way is fine with me. Thanks for raising this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Spoonerism

1. I think you probably should either change the box at the top of this page or the message you leave on an editor's talk page when informing them of reverts you did to their edit(s). The notice at the top of this page says to lesve a reply on my own talk page. The message you posted on my talk psge says to lesve a message here.
2. Per your request, I have restored my edit to the article Spoonerism with a <ref> to a source link describing the item occurring on The Jack Benny Program. Thinking about it now, I realize you were right and I (must grudgingly conceed that I) should have included a source.

— — — —
Sent from a mobile tablet. — Paul Robinson's temporary account (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC);

Thora Birch - 2012 Delegate

Thanks for pointing out the lack of references. I thought it was in that article already there. Will add another reference or two to support. Have a good weekend. DM10-Redux (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

citing sources

hi, you left a message on my talk page about citing sources. sometimes there is no need in citing sources, but could you tell me what is the line between needing to cite a source and not needing to. thanks. ~~Lovin'Politics (talk)

@Lovin'Politics: You're wrong that "sometimes there is no need in citing sources". That very likely is the reason you've received multiple warnings. Please read WP:V. There is always not just a need, there is a requirement to cite reliable sources. Sometimes you can get away with not citing a source (at least temporarily), but that doesn't mean no source was required. Anything that is unsourced can be removed from an article. And the slippery slope you're on is that failing to cite after multiple warnings can get you blocked. You're never wrong to cite. So to answer your question: There is no line. Always cite a source. Sundayclose (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sundayclose ok thanks

Your revert of my constructive edit

You reverted an edit of mine in which I removed content from the "Aftermath" section of the Wayne Williams article that did not describe the aftermath of his killings. These two sentences simply repeat information that is presented in greater depth just six paragraphs earlier in the "Atlanta murders" section of the article, where it is relevant and appropriate. Removing this content improved the article. I explained the reason for my edit in the edit summary. If after further consideration you agree that my edit was constructive, please restore it. If not, please explain why not.

I am replying here because although you say at the top of this page that you watch any user talk page where you comment, you have made many edits to other pages on Wikipedia since I replied to your comments on my user talk page, so I must assume you are not watching it.

I will not be watching this page, so please reply on my talk page or open a discussion on the talk page for the Wayne Williams article. Thanks. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Klaatu

You cited IMDB as not a reliable source. Added a reference to the movie trailer (which is a definitive source, as per guidelines), which has the words being spoken (and misspoken) and the approximate time they are spoken in the clip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.108.81 (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Freedom and Dignity

I'd appreciate your constructive feedback on how the chapters by Zubroff and essay by Ayn Rand are "non-notable trivia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity#%22Non-notable_trivial%22_Criticism

I authentically disagree with your assertion that these are trivial or malformed.

Could you please help me understand how:

• a chapter (in a book which has a WP page that is generally regarded as significant)
• from a former student at Harvard (personally interacted with the author at the time of publication)
• now a Harvard Professor (noteable in her own right)
• specifically discussing the work at length

is **trivial**.

If this is "non-notable trivia", then what is your definition of what is "notable" and "non-trivial"?

I seek to understand so may start removing any criticism that don't meet these minimum criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.212.80 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:WEIGHT. The opinion of a few grad students a few decades ago, especially in the amount of detail as you presented it, places excessive emphasis on the opinions of a few people in the context of the weight of professional opinions about the book. If this had been a group of well-respected scholars who are notable and published in their field of expertise, it might merit inclusion (although trimmed down). But that's not the case. Please get consensus to restore. Thank you. By the way, the level one template I placed on your talk page does not pertain to the content itself; it refers to your reverting without discussion. Read WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Sundayclose (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aptronym

Someone with the name ‘Gene’ is a Professor of Genomics

This is a clear example of an Aptronym

It does not need citation as it is self evident DrSaloomi (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@DrSaloomi: Everything on Wikipedia requires a citation, regardless of whether it's self-evident to you. Please read WP:V. Sundayclose (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, not everything. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, except when you do. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your dedicated and tireless work in reverting vandalism and disruptive editing on Death of Elisa Lam after Netflix vastly increased traffic to the article in February 2021 — Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you! FastSlow345 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Bob Dylan page edit

In my edit on the Bob Dylan page, I included the Bible reference, Psalm 27:10. I did not include a link to a specific page on which this verse can be found on the Internet, because there are many places on the internet where Bible verses can be found. I didn’t want to give the impression that any one website would have that verse to the exclusion of all the others.

I can change this if necessary, but I have noticed that on other Wikipedia pages, the Bible reference is considered enough of a citation without any further links to specific web pages. Chinabara (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure why that YouTube link is appended to my message! Chinabara (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chinabara: Even if there was a citation to the verse, your edit violates WP:NOR because it is a statement of your opinion that the Bible verse is about "defilement and remorse". You need two things to restore the information: a source that describes the verse as representing defilement and remorse, AND a source that clearly links that verse to Bob Dylan. If I thought about it long enough, I could insert Bible verses in the Dylan article and throughout Wikipedia as relating to what is being written about in the article. But that would be my personal opinion, so without a source to back me up I don't do that. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I Conspiracy Theories

I am trying to insert a a statement made by John Paul I in his 4th audience

with a pope who publicly attacked the capitalistic tenets upon which the United States had been founded: “‘Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need....’”

I want to reference the Vatican's website

www.vatican.va

The internet listing is

General audience 27 of September 1978 John Paul I

How do i get it to work?

Thank you for your help

George Gregoire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaticanbuff (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticanbuff: First and foremost, the quotation by JPI doesn't remotely support your edit, "with one of the men most responsible for the rise of the Communist Party in Italy in the Papacy". You have stretched the literal meaning of the quotation into a your personal opinion. You are only allowed to state the immediate facts presented in a source, not your interpretation of the facts. You can find information about citations at WP:CITE, but don't waste your time making the edit without a source that supports your edit because it will be removed immediately. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lolita.

Why have you eliminated my contribution twice?! You told me to get consensus. Where's the jury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemcor69 (talk • contribs) 04:26, March 31, 2021 (UTC)

@Davemcor69: The content of Wikipedia is not decided by a jury. It is determined by policies, guidelines, reliable sources, and if necessary consensus. The source you cite for one of your edits does not make a connection between the song and the novel. The other edit has no source whatsoever. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please click the blue links here, as well as the blue links on the welcome notice you received on your talk page four years ago, and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines before continuing to edit. Sundayclose (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Appalachian music

Hello Sundayclose,

I am trying to edit Appalachian musig page for my project and I saw that you delete some of the parts that I write can you please give me a more information of why you are deleting it? After I will work in that way. Thank you.--Melisa Nur Temiz (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Melisa Nur Temiz: There is little indication that Hazel Dickens is notable. See WP:NMG. Additionally, the writing style is not encyclopedic. Sundayclose (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sundayclose, a couple of comments: Melisa is a brand-new editor, and a student in this Wiki Ed course. It sounds like she's reaching out to you here for guidance. There are definitely some problems with some of Melisa's additions, but as she's brand new, per WP:BITE more guidance when reverts need to be made per policy would be nice.

I certainly support any policy-based reverts at Appalachian music, such as this one, which lacked a source. In this one however, you reverted as "Not notable", and for "grammatical and stylistic errors", and I find that revert problematic. First, WP:Notability only applies to article topics (titles), and not to article content, which specifically does not have to be notable. Put another way: there is no requirement for someone to be WP:NMG-notable in order to deserve a mention at the article, that only governs whether she deserves a stand-alone article; WP:DUEWEIGHT might still apply. However, I don't get the comment you made above about "Hazel Dickens": she was first added, along with a source, here (2009), and is still in the article. What does this have to do with Melisa's editing?

Secondly, in the edit you reverted, Melisa included content about two things: Chicago label Flying Fish, with a sparse citation from Appalachian Journal (along with a JStor url proxied through her university which doesn't work outside WVU; the correct url is here) and content about the White Top Folk Festival, with another proxied url ( correct url here) from GeoJournal (2006), like AJ, also a valid source. It's true that there are grammatical or style problems with the edit, but that calls for copyediting; content in poor but comprehensible English should simply be corrected (or left for someone else to correct), not reverted. That said, the Flying Fish material was placed in the wrong section, and is possibly undue for this article; I would have removed it as well. (The article has nothing on music labels, suggesting a whole new area for expansion.) The stuff about White Top definitely could be retained, in the festival section. Lending Melisa a helping hand to add back that material would be nice. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Melisa Nur Temiz: Thanks for you message. I generally agree with you, and I reverted my edit. Unfortunately at this time I don't have the time to tutor a new user who is editing Wikipedia for a university assignment. If I am able later I will try to do so. If I did not completely restore this user's edits, feel free to let me know. Sundayclose (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; just to be clear, part of your revert was well-founded, imho, and represented material that was better off removed from the article. I'll have another look later, and see what if anything needs to be removed again. I appreciate your actions in this case. If you have time or feel like learning more about the Wiki Ed program (I'm not a member, just a kind of stalker/helper), feel free to contact me, or User:Ian (Wiki Ed), who is the content expert for the WVU course. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of my addition of a cover version of the Beatles "I'm Happy Just To Dance With You" to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cover_versions_of_Beatles_songs

The addition I made appears as having been authored by 98.14.40.11 because I was not logged in when I made the addition. The reason for your revert was "not notable." The artist who released the cover version in question is called "Eddie D and the Guarantee" which is an alternate name for Ed Di Lello. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Di_Lello. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory_(drama)#Ed_Di_Lello ("Ed Di Lello composed, orchestrated, conducted and staged Purgatory as an opera on a double bill with Yeats' The Cat and the Moon produced by Philip Meister and Maurice Edwards at The Cubiculo in New York City in March 1974. An unreleased recording of Purgatory is found in the Billy Rose Collection of the New York Public Library.") Respectfully suggest that the artist is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in List of Cover Versions of Beatles Songs. Best regards, Evdipl12 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC) evdipl12

@Evdipl12: If you refer to this revert made by me, my edit summary did not say "not notable". It said WP:CIRCULAR, meaning that Wikipedia cannot source itself. Since The Soul is Greater Than the Hum of the Parts (EP) does not have a Wikipedia article, we have no idea if it's notable (or if it even exists) without a citation to a reliable source. Ed Di Lello's other achievements may support his notability, but not the notability of the EP that you list. Sundayclose (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Capricious reversion of edits

Cease this behavior immediately --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaj Taj Mahal: First of all it's not capricious. I am reverting poorly worded edits. And I'm not the only editor with that opinion. You have now been reverted by two editors. Secondly, read WP:BRD. While you're at it, read WP:EW so you don't end up getting blocked for edit warring. You need to take it to the talk page and get consensus before restoring. Now, if you want to argue this further, go to the article's talk page, not mine, so the entire Wikipedia community can hear your justification for such bad writing. Sundayclose (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion from my addition to the Greta Thunberg page

Dear Sundayclose,

In my modification of the Greta Thunberg page I noted that she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before the more notable Scandinavian parliamentarians nominated her. The nomination was done via the website at http://NP4SD.org, where she was a joint nominee for a Peace Prize for (truly) Sustainable Development along with Dr. Herman Daly (the 'grandfather' of Ecological Economics) and Pope Francis, with his most notable achievement being the issuance of the Papal Encyclical called Laudato Si'. Ms. Thunberg's achievement was her turning the world of 'climate change' on its ear starting with her brave one-child 'School Strike for the Climate'. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to confirm that unequivocally since the Norwegian Nobel Committee keeps its records of nominations secret for 50 years. This is stated clearly on their website.

I should also note to you that I was planning another edit of her page. I happen to know that she was introduced at the UNFCCC-sponsored climate negotiations (COP-24) in Katowice, Poland by Stuart Scott on the daily 'TV program' he has been doing for years at the COP. This is verifiable by the following 4 links...

https://unfccc-videocloud.azurewebsites.net/videos/greta-thunberg-15-years-old-ignites-school-strike-climate https://unfccc-videocloud.azurewebsites.net/videos/greta-svante-thunberg-straight-talk https://unfccc-videocloud.azurewebsites.net/videos/greta-thunberg-nils-agger-liam-baulch-extinction-rebellion https://unfccc-videocloud.azurewebsites.net/videos/greta-thunberg-marten-thorslund-we-dont-have-time

I happen to follow Stuart Scott and his work both at the UN climate talks and elsewhere. His press conferences with Greta were arranged (4 of them) to give all of the other assembled members of the world press access to the budding young climate activist. Mr. Scott discovered in Stockholm, Sweden upon being invited to make a presentation at a 'no-fly' climate conference held by the group called WeDontHaveTime.org where she had also been invited to speak. Mr. Scott convinced Greta's father, Svante, to make the long drive down to Katowice, Poland. When the Swedish delegation discovered she was coming, they introduced her to Sec. Gen'l Guterres, and the rest is history.

I don't do my Wikipedia editing very often, but please let me know if I may restore the edit, and include the link to that website, NP4SD.org and also let me know whether or not you will object to my adding a reference to Mr. Scott's introducing Greta at COP-24, which has turned out to be a seminal moment in her own history as a climate activist.

Excuse me if I have not used you user 'talk' page correctly. I am not that experienced an editor.

Much thanks

@Mediatr9: Please sign your talk page edits using four tildes (~~~~). There are two reasons I reverted your edit. First, you didn't cite a reliable source, which is required on Wikipedia. What you personally know is irrelevant if you don't cite the source. Please read W:V. Secondly, Nobel nominations are often added to articles and then removed because there are so many nominations that they are not notable unless the person actually wins the Nobel. The appropriate place to discuss this is at Talk:Greta Thunberg, where you should get consensus before restoring your edit. Sundayclose (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-indicative edit reason

At Rebecca Dayan, here. Look, I know you were trying to be funny or cute, but when edit reasons are very hyperbolic like that (and you have to be honest, an extraneous wikilink is a thousand times better than most poorly-written sentences, so it was unnecessary), it makes people reviewing edits (me) think that it could be hiding disruptive editing. Obviously your edit was an improvement, but writing edit reasons like that is a common indicator of disruption, so it would be just helpful if you didn't do that. Since it's not disruptive editing, I'm not going to look through your contribs to see if it's a common occurrence, I'll AGF that you were just weirdly passionate about being snarky this once, and let you know that a descriptive edit reason would have been better all round. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I realize that you have invested in the article since you created it and are the primary editor (and I appreciate that), but that doesn't mean you WP:OWN it, especially when it comes to keeping poorly written sentences in the article. She is an activist; that's true. She is an activist who has been involved in the issue of maternal mortality. But to say that she is a "maternal mortality in the United States activist" is extremely awkward. As an analogy, suppose we described a politician: "John Doe is a person from New York seeking the presidency candidate"? Very awkward, and your sentence is just as awkward. It's sufficient just to describe her as an activist and let interested readers look at the remainder of the article if they are interested in her specific activism. That's the way most articles that are as short as this one do it. In hindsight I'll acknowledge that I didn't word my edit summary very delicately, but please don't restore the awkward sentence without first discussing on the talk page. But frankly, the simpler the better Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok dude, I didn't restore the edit, and you'll see above that I said you did improve the article. So how about you don't make baseless accusations of OWN? I didn't dispute the changes, which were clear when looking at the diff, at all. Here you're acting like you're some gift to Wikipedia, which is not a particularly collaborative attitude. I'm not here about the edit, I'm here about how you're presenting yourself, which is getting worse by the minute from my side.

When people (me) see edit summaries that are more insulting than anything and don't explain changes, they (I) have to ask who writes that and why do they do it. Now I make my fair share of sarcastic edit reasons, but context is everything. It's not simply that you were indelicate, but you gave no context of what change you made or why, and exaggeration of others' faults is one way that canny vandals try to claim they are making good changes. It hit all the red flags, basically. And my point was, I don't know how clear I was or wasn't since you seem to have just assumed I got annoyed at you for editing the article (beware, people can criticize you without it being territorial!), that you made a good change but from edit history (or my watchlist) alone, it looked like a potentially very bad edit from a combative vandal. I thought I would make you aware that it's not a good way to be drawing attention to yourself. Take the advice or leave it. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Point taken. However, please do not refactor others' talk page comments. That's a clear policy violation. See WP:TALKO. Sundayclose (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

;) you clearly missed what I was doing with that, but it's really not worth the effort. It was a lighthearted jab at, well, you, but let's use it to leave the reminder that defending tangential points is a classic way everyone (myself included) avoids saying "ok oops". Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I need help editing the Lisey's Story page

We've talked months ago. I need assistance to edit the page and fix the incorrect information on how and when Stephen King got the idea for Lisey's Story. There is no interview that states he got the idea after he got hit by the van..... I have a link that Stephen King states that he got the idea in 2000.

Also in On Writing, Stephen King states his office is on the second floor. Because of that Tabitha King makes a temporary desk near can, the kitchen on the first floor...

So if you can refresh me on how to edit the page and add a link. I'm not very knowledgeable about editing pages at all. Please get back to me when you, thanks!! Deac7117 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

70.189.24.158

Said anonymous user has been adding information on the "Norfolk and Western 1218" page about wanting to see the locomotive operating without providing any proof. Trains13 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken

Hi. I'm following up here to avoid cluttering up the SPI page. Please try to understand this from the point of view of somebody investigating the complaint. You said, "It would have taken you about 30 seconds to look at the edit history". There's almost 30 socks in the archives. There's dozens of different pages that have been edited by them. How do I even know which one to be looking at? But, you've already figured that out. You've noticed that there are edits which this user has repeated from previous socks. I'm not asking you to do any research. All I'm asking is that you share the information that you've already uncovered. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I don't think you get it. For every edit I linked, scrolling down just a few lines in the page history you'll easily see an edit with an identical number of characters. That's the previous sock's edit. I don't think I can explain any more clearly. But we're wasting each other's time here. Thanks for the block. No need to reply. Sundayclose (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Vivarium budget

Hey are you serious, I added the value information in a page along with its reference. Don't try to be smart okay

@Oneyatri: No source cited. You've racked up numerous warnings. Keep this up and you'll lose your editing privileges. And if you have nothing but false information and snarky comments for me, stay off of my talk page. This is the only time I'll ask you to do that. Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: yes their is a source from CNET.com and if you every time do the same with talk this is not correct way and you may lose your editing privileges okay

@Oneyatri: Final warning: Stay off of this talk page and do not make unsourced edits. Otherwise we'll be discussing this at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User Cable1029

I am politely asking Cable1029 to discuss their accusations about me here. I hope we can resolve your misunderstandings. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Since Cable10291 refuses to allow discussion on their own talk page (reverting every attempt, leaving false accusations in the edit summaries for those reverts), for future reference this will serve as a summary of my interactions with this user.

My first encounter with this user was when I reverted their removal of a red link; their explanation for removing the red link was "Removed link, doesn't meet criteria". This removal of a red link was in direct contradiction to WP:REDLINK. I left a standard notice about the need to maintain red links. Trying to assume good faith, I asked this user to please link the criteria they used in removing the red link in case I wasn't aware of the policy or guideline they referred to, and I offered an apology if I was unaware of such a policy or guideline. Rather than giving me this explanation, they began an onslaught of threats and false accusations about me and refusal to discuss on their talk page: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

I also find it interesting that this user claims to be a new user, accusing me of biting a newcomer, yet they were able to quickly link five policies, guidelines, or essays on Wikipedia in their talk page comments and edit summaries within a few days of their first edit.

I'm open to civilly discussing this issue (as long as the false accusations don't continue), but discussion is a two-way street. So far I cannot get any substantive discussion, only reverts, threats, and accusations. Sundayclose (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Kate (film)

Another editor not reading. I invite you to restore your edit.[8] His userpage continues to claim he is "no longer here" despite obvious evidence to the contrary. I have known him to be a hostile aggressive editor in the past and I've reverted one of his unexplained edits already. There is a lower chance of over-reaction if you restore your own edit. -- 109.78.195.245 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You are the one hiding behind multiple IP edits, hoping that no one will notice, collect and show them as evidences against you. You might wanna check one of the warnings you received on one of your talk pages and try to actually write a reasonable edit summary before getting a block. Attention seeking and targeting behaviour will get you nowhere. You can find a good description of your edits on one the talk pages you edited, too.

Rude editor overreacts and proves my point. Sundayclose, there is more I could say but I'm sure you can judge for yourself from his attitude and his edits. -- 109.76.211.200 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

As for the actual contribution regarding "disappointing", it is only used by RT consensus, and it is not exactly a good representation that quote. However, something like "but found the film 'disappointingly derivative of numerous other female assassin films.'" should be OK. ภץאคгöร 20:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Midnight mass

Ive noticed you are making changes to the midnight mass board in regards to the vampire. You might have missed that the showrunners themselves have said directly that the vampire is not a angel but a classic vampire. The point of the show is how religious zealots can corrupt peoples views and beliefs of things. The show shows how people can literally convince someone who is face to face with a giant bat winged demon that is very obviously a vampire that its a angel. I hope this clears this up and the constant corrections can stop being made by myself, but ill have to report you if you continue to vandalize the page.

@Tron4444444: First of all, give us a reliable source that "the showrunners themselves have said directly that the vampire is not a angel but a classic vampire". That's how Wikipedia works. Your saying it doesn't make it true. Secondly, you don't need to tell me the point of the show. Lots of people, including me, understand the point of the show. Sundayclose (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

What to do about Midnight Mass's vandalism(?)

This user already has several edit war warnings on their page and continues to revert my edits, no matter how accurate mine are and how much I abide by Wikipedia's rules and I'm worried about getting flagged with an edit war warning.Trqalobaid (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Trqalobaid: I made a 3rr report: WP:AN3#User:Tron4444444 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: ). That's the only way to deal with this kind of trolling. Hopefully that will result in a block, indef I hope. That process can take a day or two. Don't revert any more for a while or you could end up with a block. Sundayclose (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

After the dust settles, here is a quotation for the article by creator-director Flanagan: "The angel doesn’t represent vampirism or horror but corruption in any belief system." [9] He explicitly calls it an angel that does not represent vampirism. Sundayclose (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Tron4444444 has returned with another account with a similar name and is back vandalizing the article.Trqalobaid (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Berklee College of Music Alumni

You said that I didn't put a citation for Xilinnayi Gao/Curly G... I literally posted her own Wikipedia page and that of her music group. How is that not an adequate citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.147.135 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot source itself. Your edit does not provide a citation to a reliable source. Linking someone's Wikipedia page is not a citation. Look at all other entries. Each has a citation. Your edit doesn't get an exception. Feel free to add the name with an appropriate citation to a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheerios

Hi @Sundayclose:,

I am fairly new, so even though I am trying my absolute best, I still manage to seem to get a moderate amount of reverts. Which is discouraging to say the least. Anyway, I took that picture, and there was no copyright or other intellectual property indicator on it, can you tell me how you'd suggest going about this for that picture of the 1941 box. Also, I did not revert that, because I understand your point. The other one I did revert, because I feel there must be a way to solve for that, or even add a {citation needed} blurb, but to delete it outright seems to me to be a bit much given that it is right ON every Cheerios box sold in the United States in 2021. Thanks!! Th78blue (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please "ping" me so I know when you've responded. Thanks! Th78blue (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Th78blue. If you look on the ingredients side of the box near the bottom, in fine print there is a copyright notice for General Mills. Without any other information that would apply to everything on the box. Regarding your quotation from the box, I'll not push that one since you've clearly stated where it came from. There's probably a way to cite General Mills, but if no one else objects I don't plan to revert it. Thanks for discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, copyrights expire, but this is something I don't know a lot about for images. For books, the copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. According to the article the name changed in 1945. That would make any CheeriOats box from that time at least 76 years old. There are images of the actual boxes from many years ago on the internet. If you can figure out when image copyrights expire that might be a possibility. The other thing to be careful about is whether the website that hosts the image is copyrighted. Wikipedia is very restrictive about copyright because of the legal ramifications. Sundayclose (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Fascinating point that I had not yet even considered, that copyrights DO expire and that this "CheeriOats" box very likely IS expired if you ask me. I think given that reality, and that we are not using this material for anything other than descriptive of Cheerios, I can't imagine this is a problem. On top of the fact that I took a picture of it, so I believe it should be part of "fair use", no? If you undo your edit, that might be easier than me doing it, if you agree with my reasoning. Thanks for your time and explanations too by the way. Th78blue (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: I think you may have missed part of my point. Everything on a current box of Cheerios is under copyright by General Mills, including the image of CheeriOats. What may have expired is everything on a box from 76 years ago. If the copyright on that old box is expired, a picture from that box could be used. But I don't know when the copyright for images expires. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. What if I take a picture of the ENTIRE box from afar? Maybe I need to find an old box on eBay and use that? :) Thanks @Sundayclose: Th78blue (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: If you Google CheeriOats, you'll see several images of old boxes. If the copyright on that box is expired, you can use that image assuming the website hosting the image doesn't have a copyright notice. But I don't know when the copyright on the old boxes expires. Images are not something I know a lot about, but I know everything on a current box is under copyright. Sundayclose (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Psychological testing

Thank you for the information about the psychological testing entry, User:Sundayclose. I will keep an eye out for an overabundance links to similar sources. In addition, you are right about separating professional psychology and pop psychology. Regarding separating the professional from the pop, please put a message on my talk page about the relevant edits you would like me to review. Iss246 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose, in the i/o and climate entries, I deleted or changed some of the sources you indicated and left others intact because of their value. I found the sources in the harm reduction and Naloxone entries particularly valuable, and decided not to edit them out. I will write a note on Psyc12's talk page indicating that I deleted some sources in view of what you found out. Iss246 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246: Thanks. For some reason the last link I placed on your talk page is inconsistent in linking the correct diff, so here is a revision of that link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_testing&type=revision&diff=1050790405&oldid=1033172925. I have a couple of questions: How would you feel if I removed the link to https://www.psycom.net/quizzes? As I stated on your talk page, to the general public this suggests that these "quizzes" are legitimate psychological tests. Also, how do you feel about the link to his website https://paulspector.com/assessments/?

Perhaps we should ask this user to read and follow the recommendations at WP:COI regarding adding refs or external links related to him. If you prefer not doing that I don't mind. I plan to be respectful as I don't necessarily consider this behavior to be malicious, just misguided (and maybe uninformed). Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose, I think we should include the link to Spector's assessment website. I made up my mind because a reader can find useful tests and scales there. They are available in one place and provide a great deal of information. The WP user can actually read the content of the scales and find out about them. For example, the reader can find out about a scale's reliability.

I add this. I have WP-related experience with such a decision. A number of years ago I added some edits to the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) entry. I added to the IPIP entry a link to the item pool itself because readers of the entry may want to take advantage of the website for the purpose of constructing any one of a number of personality inventories. I think the links to IPIP and to Spector have practical and educational value. Iss246 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose, although not related to psychological testing, I also examined the sources in the harm reduction and Naloxone entries. There were links to those sources. I left the links intact because I found them to be valuable to readers. Iss246 (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

About Lennon's page

I agree with your comments about the selection of a few Beatles songs being very subjective. That being said I feel like Lennon's most famous songs while in The Beatles is worthy of mention in the lead, as McCartney and Harrison's pages both list their most well known Beatles songs (and they also have a vast songwriting catalogue). I chose songs that Lennon primarily wrote which are either hits or are well known (similar to Harrison's page listing his most well known Beatles songs). --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion: With respect, I must disagree that it belongs in the lead without consensus, which probably will be hard to get because it's a matter of opinion. Almost all Beatles' songs were hits. Some were bigger than others, but there are so many that Lennon wrote or co-wrote that it is generally impossible to whittle it down to a few that most people will agree are most notable. From the list I mentioned on the Lennon talk page, I could easily identify half a dozen that I think are more notable. And I'm sure other editors would have their own list. If were were talking about an artist who had three or four hits it might be feasible. But in the case of Lennon, it's not. Thanks for you comment. Sundayclose (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, this makes total sense! It's hard to narrow Lennon's songs in The Beatles to "most notable", due to the facts you mentioned and Lennon also being a prolific songwriter as well. As a fan of both The Beatles and their solo works, it was hard for me to narrow those songs down too, so you are entirely right with this. Beatles fans such as us could go backwards and forwards with songs we think are more notable so it its for the best to leave it out of the lead altogether. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Amazon Rainforest Misconception

Do you have the original Nat Geo link? I'll take a shot at writing the prose. Squatch347 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Squatch347 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/why-amazon-doesnt-produce-20-percent-worlds-oxygen. It's on the talk page. Thanks for working on this. My time is very limited. Sundayclose (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh man, I found it right after opening this link. Thanks! Squatch347 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Overton

Hi @Sundayclose: ... you've helped me in the past on my Cheerios edits (Still trying to figure that one out! I can't for the life of me find how to upload pictures that are copywritten).

On another topic, I would like your help fixing an "infobox" on this page if you could please help. I know that all the information I entered is factual (just pulled from the existing sources as is). I was creating an infobox for Joseph P. Overton and when I went to publish it, it looks like a total mess! Any help you could lend in this effort as a more experienced editor than I, would be seriously appreciated!!! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 19:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Th78blue:  Fixed - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WOW! I think I have a new love interest! His/her name is @FlightTime: !!! :) I jest, but seriously, can you tell me what I did wrong so that I can learn from my mistakes and not make them again in the future? That was AMAZINGLY speedy!!! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm taken - FlightTime (open channel) 20:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You forgot the ending }} on the last unbulleted list call. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: I assume the above answers your question. Sundayclose (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies too for undoing this, I tend to just "clean up" so that I am not cluttering people's talk pages, and figured I'd help out that way, but if that is not "good practice" as @FlightTime: pointed out, I will not do that anymore! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 00:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

While I have the ear of two senior editors that are friendly and responsive, can you tell me the answer please to one more question? I was curious if there is an easy way to tell how many times there is a wikilink to a given page, and which pages those are, and how many wikilinks are on each page etc? For example, San Francisco is wikilinked in California numerous times (I haven't manually counted how many times, but this speaks to my point). I am just trying organize my edits a bit more.. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 01:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: The only way I know is to open an edit window and do a CTRL-F (in Windows; don't know about a Mac) and search for "[[California]]". You can ask at WP:Village pump (technical) to see if there's a better way. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove my addition to the mini-series MAID? I included a summary of Episode 1 and you removed it. What is the problem?

I need to understand what is the problem?

UhtredAZ (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's poorly written, including several grammatical errors, poor word selection, and unencyclopedic writing style. Competence in encyclopedic writing is necessary on Wikipedia. If you wish to make the edit, either get help with your writing, or place your suggested edit on the article talk page and ask for help. Sundayclose (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs page

Hi,

Just saw you deleted my edit and then five mins later apologised for misunderstanding the refs. Firstly, can I say thank you so much for that. I wish every wikipedian was like you.

But - and I know this can't be your fault cos you must have just clicked undo - it's put back all the text I added and the first 4 refs I added. But I wrote the post - let's say post 1 - and then added a little bit - post 2 - which put one extra sentence saying why turbans aren't seen by English racists as towels, because unlike the Palestinian {or Saudi} keffiyah, they don't look like the most common UK tea-towels.

I added another 5 ref links for that.

But since you restored it, it now has my post 1 {several sentences with 4 refs} but not my post 2 - the extra sentence and the 5 Refs from racist websites saying Yasser Arafat had a tea-towel on his head.

Any idea why? And can you bring that bit back? I dunno what time zone you're in but I'm in the UK and am going to sleep in a minute. If you could help, I'd really appreciate it.

The term towel-head became common in the UK in the '70s when Yasser Arafat wore the most common tea-towel pattern as his keffiyah. None of my British Sikh mates have ever reported a fellow Sikh in the UK being called a towel-head.

There have always been many racist Brits - though thankfully the number falls each year - but they would have been quite happy to call an Indian-descent Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc a "paki" but have too much pride in the Eng Lang to call a Sikh a "towel-head" when, unlike an Arab, their headgear doesn't look like a normal, British tea-towel.

Thanks in advance. Let me know if you can't sort it.

Ganpati bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati23 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ganpati23: After I reverted myself, the article is exactly the same as it was after your edit. If you look at the two diffs you'll see that they are identical. I wish I could help, but I have no idea why something you wrote is now missing. All I can suggest is that you make another edit to get it the way you want it. Sorry. Sundayclose (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It says that just before 1am GMT, you undid the edit, saying: (Reverted 1 edit by Ganpati23 (talk): Gross misrepresentation of the source. The source does not discuss any differentiation in British English. And it is entirely an article about one person's experiences, not a broad explanation of the term.)

This doesn't make sense. I did not cite any "article about one person's experiences." I cited 4 dictionaries. I showed that in US slang, the term rag-head refers to Sikhs as well as Arabs and Muslims generally. Encyclo.co.uk says "towel-head" is only for an Arab or Muslim. Lexico.com says in UK English it says Arab or Muslim. And Native English Dictionary says it's British slang for an Arab. I assume you can't be British, as no-one ever used the term towel-head to refer to a Sikh, because unlike the Keffiyah, a Sikh turban doesn't look like a common or garden British tea-towel, that Yanks call dishcloths. In the bad old days of the National Front, all Brits of South Asian heritage were refereed to offensively as "Pakis." Since 9/11 some have been called "Taliban."

And the reasons for the differences between the UK and US in this regard are historical. Before mass immigration to the UK started after the 2nd World War, the Sikhs were among the pre-eminent of the so-called "martial races" that had stayed loyal during the Indian Mutiny, and are were respected as among the best troops the British possessed. {In the same way that even the racists today make an exception for the Gurkhas.} They fought long and hard from 1915 onwards to ensure they were allowed to keep wearing their army issue turbans while all other troops had to wear the new metal helmets. The first Sikh officer, Sardar {meaning a nobleman} Hardit Malik Singh, was commissioned into the RFC {forerunner of the RAF, then still part of the army}, in 1916 shortly before Walter Tull became the first black, British army officer. And Malik Singh had a flying helmet especially made that he could wear over his turban. So there is a very long history of respecting the turbaned Sikh, in a similar way that the Gurkhas are still respected to this day. And this folk memory that developed from the 1850s to 1947 has stayed with us.

Likewise, in a country that has generally been more divided by social class than race, the fact that during the late empire, we would know of the native princes, often turbaned, and see photos and newsreel of them shaking hands with British royalty. Educated at the best public {i.e. private} schools, they would speak with an RP accent - i.e. the Queen's English - an accent is more important than skin colour. Ranjitsinji, ruler of the Indian princely state of Nawanagar, was also one of the all time great batsmen - he averaged over 50 in tests in Australia and invented two of the most common shots, the late cut and the leg glance. An American, not sharing this history, might lump Sikhs and Arabs together. Brits don't. As I say, they would be lumped with people of all faiths from the cricket playing countries of the subcontinent. The most recent Sikh to test play cricket for England, Monty Panesar, did so in a turban and basically won our most recent test series victory in India in 2012. Mo-one would confuse him with an Arab. A racist with no understanding of cricket might ask "Why are we letting that fat Paki open the bowling for us?" but would never call him a towel-head.

So it is possible for a racist to look down on Yasser Arafat's terrorist attacks, or MBS dismembering a journalist and call each of them a towel-head. But a modern racist would define all people of sub-continental heritage by skin colour and call them "Pakis", happily offending the Hindus and Sikhs on the grounds that "they all piss in the same pot." That wouldn't be the case with Sikhs and Arabs. A racist slur has to define the group you're trying to insult. It's not much use starting a rant with "There was this towel-head on the tube and ..." if the person listening to you then has to ask if you mean Sikh or Arab.

The one source I didn't cite was the one that is one person's experiences. That was from the original writing. And it's in America.

Ganpati23 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ganpati23: Why are you trying to convince me that your edits are OK? I don't have a problem with your edits. I reverted your edit by mistake, then I reverted back. After that the article was exactly the way it was before I edited. I have made no further edits to the article since then. Here is the edit history for the article. At the top (as of right now), you'll see your edit, my revert of that edit, and then my restoring your edit. No more edits after that. If you need to edit the article, please feel free. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Sundayclose (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Incase you didn't know

You're on WaPo: [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

So very proud of you! Congrats. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Sundayclose:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion to my edit on the page for Roxana Zal

Roxana Zal is not the female lead in the film River's Edge. She has only a few lines.

Ione Skye is the female lead, and I'm not sure why you claim she 'isn't even in the cast list'. I just saw the fillm. She was credited as Ione Skye Leitch, if that helps. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091860/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_ttfc_3 Midnightmuse (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits to "beans, beans, the musical fruit"

I'm new here, so apologies if I'm using this incorrectly. I think the tweaks to my addition, with the insertion of the mention of the rhyme, are good and make the relationship to the song clearer. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Grobean (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Berklee College of Music alumni

Please explain how this is poorly sourced. ✗plicit 00:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: The page https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20140519192600005 has nothing about Berklee. So, please explain how it is not poorly sourced. A direct quotation from the webpage that actually names Berklee might be helpful. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"아버지처럼 뮤지션을 꿈꾼 그는 미국 버클리음대에서 '컨템퍼러리 라이팅&프로덕션'(Contemporary Writing&Production)을 전공했다." ("He dreamt of becoming a musician like his father and majored in Contemporary Writing&Production at Berklee College of Music in the United States." Since you're apparently more fluent in Korean, perhaps you can provide your translation. ✗plicit 01:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Actually I was relying on a Korean friend, who couldn't find a word that translated to "Berklee". But I'll take your word for it. I reverted my edit. I've had to remove a lot of poorly sourced, falsely sourced, and unsourced edits from that article. Thanks for the correction. Sundayclose (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The article uses an acronym, so the full name does not actually appear. Compare "버클음대" to 버클리 음악 대학. Dealing with poorly sourced material can be frustrating, but please also consider the contributor. I'm sure you come across a lot of new or anonymous users who just add things to lists, but I'm a long-time user who added a Korean-language source. Because of the language barrier, I feel like asking me on my talk page or pinging me on the article's talk page would have made more sense. ✗plicit 02:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Very good point. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: November 2021

First off, my editing was intended in good faith. Second of all, my changes were actually sourced. If you check the Wait article, you'll find that it states that Paul did in fact sing the middle eight parts alone. So my changes were in fact correct and valid.

If you compare the two revisions, you'll find that my edit did not add any unsourced information as your reversion suggested. My edit just rearranged the order of the personnel slightly. But did not make any changes to it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Either conform to the Macdonald source cited in the article or provide another reliable source. I never said you edited in bad faith. But an edit that is wrong is still wrong if it done in good faith. And you've received previous messages and warning about changing Beatles articles. Sundayclose (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright. Well I still consider the type of warning message that you used to be unnecessarily harsh for someone who has an ongoing history of positive contributions. Not to mention, the warning message mentioned 'disruptive editing' which I don't recall doing, as well as the blocking policy.

Personally I think that a level 1 warning would have made better sense. Since I haven't received any warning messages in years. Normally I wouldn't recommend level 3 warnings unless the user was editing in bad faith or had already received a level 1 and/or level 2 warning. The change I made to the Wait page conformed to the Guesdon source that was added further up the page. So I didn't see any need to add an additional source when there was already a source that supported my changes. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Warnings don't diminish in importance simply with the passage of time. If anything they become more important as an editor becomes more experienced. Similarly, your inability to recall warnings or similar comments from other editors doesn't mean they are less important. And you obviously are aware that another editor (one of the most prolific editor to Beatles articles) has told you that such edits are inappropriate. Finally, as an experienced editor, you should abide by WP:BRD instead of reverting, especially after a warning. You may not want to believe this, but warnings are as much for your protection as they are to protect Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for not continuing to revert. Sundayclose (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that literally anyone - trolls included - can issue warnings to users. Not that it changes or has any relation to this particular situation in any way. I didn't continue to revert because I usually limit myself to one revert if the other user reverted my edit first, or two reverts if I reverted the other user's edit first. And I don't revert at all unless I have something backing up my reason for reverting. I do occasionally make multiple reversions, but that's only if the other user is a vandal. But even then, I try not to ignore the three-revert rule.

If you had the (block) right, I probably would have been less persistent and more wary. I haven't given up just yet. And am planning to add that source to the personnel section so that it supports the changes that I made. Though I may have to start a new section on the article's talk page. Since I'm not very good at adding sources of that particular format. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: I have no idea what your first sentence means in that comment ("block right"). Anyway, feel free to look for sources; it's always great to have reliable sources. Be aware, however, that a few sources are widely considered authoritative. Among those are sources written by Mark Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald, Barry Miles, and Geoff Emerick. There are also some notoriously bad sources. If sources disagree, the Wikipedia community that focuses on Beatles articles are generally more favorable to the more authoritative sources. That doesn't mean, of course, that another source can't be discussed on a talk page. I'm sure you're also aware that there are a lot of eyes on Beatles articles; some editors have edited those articles for many years and do a good job of keeping the articles in good shape. You've sought the opinion of one of those, JG66, whose opinion I respect very much. This is entirely up to you, of course, but it might be in your best interest and the articles' best interest, if you would discuss proposed changes with those editors, or at least on the talk pages of articles. Obviously that's not a requirement before editing, but sometimes it can avoid unnecessary conflict. I seriously doubt that you want my opinion, although I certainly don't mind offering it if I have one. But there are others editors who are very knowledgeable. Thanks for your efforts to improve the articles. Sundayclose (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What I meant was that none of the usergroups that you are part of appear to have the (block) right. While I try to treat every user the same, regardless of what rights they have, I do tend to be more persistent around users without the (block) right as opposed to users with the (block) right. Unless they are clearly rogue, but that is rarely the case. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Blocking is a tool for administrators only. So are you saying you take warnings from administrators more seriously than you do other editors? Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it is generally a tool for Administrators only. But some wikis and sites have other usergroups with the ability to block. Regarding warning messages, it really depends. If the user is a frequent contributor and is a member of one or more non-implicit groups then I'm more likely to take the warnings seriously. Though that depends on the circumstance. If the user only had a couple of edits and wasn't part of any groups, then I almost certainly wouldn't take them seriously. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: I'm still confused. I've been editing as a registered editor for seven years (and some years unregistered, but we won't count that). We can safely say I'm an experienced editor. It sounds to me like you're saying you don't take a warning from me as seriously as you do an admin. So, because I don't have the blocking tool, you took my level 3 warning less seriously ("If you had the (block) right, I probably would have been less persistent and more wary.") than you would a level 3 warning from an admin. It sounds like you aren't very concerned about how serious a warning might be unless there is an immediate danger that you'll be blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that you've been editing as a registered editor for seven years and some years unregistered. And I know that you are experienced. I didn't take the warning too seriously because it gave me the impression that it was a misunderstanding. As the edit I made was very minor and was supported by one of the sources already in the article.

My edit changed the order of the personnel. But didn't make any changes to what each member did. I also didn't take it as seriously as I normally would have done, since it's been a long time since I've actually received a warning. I was a bit concerned but not hugely concerned. I was more irritated than concerned. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: I'm not referring to whether your edit was right or wrong. I'm talking about how seriously you take warnings. If the reason you didn't take it seriously was because I was "misunderstanding", then why the comment above: "If you had the (block) right, I probably would have been less persistent and more wary"? Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Re. November 2021, once more

Your provocative tone and otherwise demeaning attitude is not helpful. If you disagree with others, you should be able to make your argument in a calm manner, without dismissing what others say as mere "opinion" (while offering nothing but a 101-level course in how to make a logical fallacy on your own end) or insinuating that such statements are "extremist views". WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are not just funny-looking all-caps short-hands, they're common sense standards of behaviour in polite society. I see I'm not the first one to warn you about this kind of thing recently, and there are few things I have less patience for than long-term uncivility (which is particularly toxic and detrimental to the project), much less so when it looks like it comes form a long-term contributor (you should know better!!!), and that I'll probably not be the only one to take it unkindly if this sort of incident repeats itself. Nor am I going to stand-by idly if I have to encounter your playground bully attitude again, such as your persistent attempts to dissuade me from taking this up elsewhere (I can virtually guarantee you that you will have very little support). I suggest you take a moment to heed this notice.

Now, as to the underlying issue, I wish no further useless drama or flaring tempers, and I probably won't be taking this up in the immediate future because I have real-life stuff to consider. As far as the article in question is considered, I'm also done: there's clearly no consensus for inclusion amongst us or the others who participated at this time, and there's been little more than back and forth between me and you recently, so it might be better to move on elsewhere.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I have not had a provocative tone or demeaning attitude. If you think I have I strongly suggest that you take it up at WP:ANI rather than making threats on my talk page. If you decide to do that, I suggest that you read WP:BOOMERANG first. You don't order me or anyone what to do or not do simply because you don't wish to seek confirmation for you opinions with the wider Wikipedia community. If I want to comment about your opinions on any talk page I am perfectly entitled to do so.

Cheers, Sundayclose (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

White and black liberals

Sorry, I got the sources mixed up. It was the Newsweek one that said liberals "sounded fed up". But the bit about both whites and blacks criticising is true at least. Jienum (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

OJ Verdict

Your recent editing history at Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jienum (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)