User talk:FormalDude

Archived discussions:   1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,  10,  11,  12

Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

This user is aware of the designation of the following contentious topics:

Contents

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Preparedness paradox on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GTA Online The Contract - Dr. Dre album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GTA Online The Contract - Dr. Dre album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Thurulingas (10:12, 8 August 2022)

Hi there! I had a question I hope has a fairly simple answer: when I edited the URL of the William Byrd Singers website in a reference on the Stephen Wilkinson page, I expected the 'Retrieved <date>' property to be automatically updated, as when I attempted to change it manually the preview showed me that that was not the right way to do it.

So, 1. does that property get updated automatically (presumably as a timed batch operation), or

2. Is there something I need to trigger for it to be updated?

Many thanks for any response!

Rob Kerr | Thurulingas --Thurulingas (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Thurulingas! The URL access date is an optional parameter and does not get updated automatically unless you use the citoid feature of the visual editor. You can update it manually by changing the access-date value in the source code of the citation. ––FormalDude talk 10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's marvellous. I've made that change.

As something of a follow-up, I noted a 'failed verification' on another reference for lack of a quote establishing Stephen's tenure as MD of the William Byrd Singers as 'nearly forty years.' What's the protocol for switching out that citation with one that does show his tenure as stretching from 1970 to 2009. Both the Byrds Website page on Stephen (https://www.williambyrdsingers.org.uk/Stephen-Wilkinson/) and Mark Flinn's book 'Sing Joyfully: The William Byrd Singers at Fifty (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sing-Joyfully-William-Singers-Fifty-ebook/dp/B08KTHQLSZ) show the dates. I don't think either has the exact quote 'nearly forty years' however. How should this be handled?

Apologies if these are fairly basic editing questions. I'm working through the 'Editing Wikipedia for Dummies' basic tutorials now! :D

Cheers,

Thurulingas Thurulingas (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thurulingas: The protocol for switching it out is be bold, which means if you can improve it, do so! You can delete the old citation and add the two new sources as citations, and lastly remove the failed verification tag. A source doesn't need to quote the text exactly, it just needs to verify what it's being used to claim. In fact, in most cases the text should not be an exact quote in order to avoid copyright violations. ––FormalDude talk 10:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, FormalDude, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you are an experienced editor with an interest in girls' football and the disappearance of women. It's good to see you now intend to help us along with better coverage of women. Before you next create a woman's biography, you might like to look through our Primer which provides useful background. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ipigott! Looking forward to working with this project more. ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Madonna of Constantinople on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Guy Barker (politician) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Edmund Bentivengo (18:19, 10 August 2022)

Hello. I was reading about Eric Smidt "co-founder" of Harbor Freight Tools and noticed another anonymous Talk contributor pointed out the Wiki entry on Smidt read like a company press release. There is credible evidence from a USA Today network publisher that Smidt has a few skeletons in his closet that should be on his wiki. His father sued him for looting the company. Also the company claim that he began HF with his father Allan in 1977 contradicts the USA Today source which states Allan Smidt started the company in 1968 when Eric was only 8 years old, not 1977 when Eric was 16 and began working with his father. The wiki is apparently fundamentally wrong. What gives? --Edmund Bentivengo (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Edmund Bentivengo: Eric Smidt has been blanked-and-redirected to the article about the company. ––FormalDude talk 07:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Samkelo Matomemala (21:10, 10 August 2022)

How to edit a poem --Samkelo Matomemala (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Samkelo Matomemala: You want to edit an existing poem on Wikipedia? Which one? ––FormalDude talk 07:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of Korean restaurants

Just wanted to make sure you saw my ping at Talk:List of Korean restaurants. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Replied at Talk:List of Korean restaurants#Recent Additions. ––FormalDude talk 14:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brothers of Italy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Josh Guberman

Hello FormalDude,

I have noticed that you rejected draft I have been working on very hard. May I know the reason? Let me know how I can fix it.

Thank you!

~~~~ Losojosazules (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Josh Guberman Losojosazules (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Losojosazules. Unfortunately I cannot find even one independent reliable source about Josh Guberman that provides the significant coverage required by Wikipedia's notability standard. ––FormalDude talk 20:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Formal Dude

I am completely confused by your message.

Mr. Guberman has had myriad articles and media coverage for over two decades.

What about these periodicals, newspapers and magazines:

The premier real estate magazine in the United States named “The Real deal” which Mr. Guberman has appeared on the cover and also quotes or covered in over half a dozen issues.

What about multiple articles in the most trusted name in journalism “the New York Times”

What about the most read and most significant luxury lifestyle magazines such as:

Hamtpons

Haute Living

Gotham

What about New York’s most widely distributed newspaper NY Post??

What about the myriad other top level periodicals he has appeared in or been quoted in:

New York magazine

Wall Street Journal

Wine spectator

We are trying to understand what is wrong with these media outlets for Wikipedia use?

I have seen hundreds of wiki articles about people who barely have two or three reputable sources yet I have provided dozens and despite that you are rejecting the page?

Please advise what I am missing.

Many thanks Losojosazules (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Losojosazules: All that coverage pertains trivially to the subject, usually with only a one-sentence mention. There are not any RS that are primarily about Guberman. ––FormalDude talk 21:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. How about the article: The Real Deal "Guberman’s gamble" that is fully about Mr Guberman and his career. Same goes to: Haute Living Hard Core: Josh Guberman of Core Development Group, Mann Publication "The Guberman Group", The New York Times "Unearthing Hidden Space", New York Post "The latest status symbol for Hamptons elite is adopting a highway" or even interview for TV Living Large CBS New York and many more... I am really confused here.

Please advise.

Thank you for your time and all the help. I really appreciate it. Losojosazules (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The New York Post is not reliable (WP:NYPOST), nor is Mann Publications or Haute Living. Interviews are not independent. The NY times article is not significant. ––FormalDude talk 07:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Improve article draft

Hello@FormalDude. Regarding the article on professional bodybuilder, Ko Chandetka, that you rejected. How many more independent reliable references would you recommend that I add? I am new to this and I modeled it after other articles on bodybuilders of equal notoriety. I was planning to add additional people from the sport and improving some of the articles with little to no references would like to get it correct. One challenge is that its difficult to find online references many of the athletes from 20-30 years ago. This particular athlete was in all of the major bodybuilding magazines, TV shows, DVDs, etc.. its just difficult to find them. As an example I manually entered an ESPN show that he was featured on. I can certainly add more of these but given the depth of research and time was hoping for some guidance on how many would be suitable especially before creating additional articles. Any guidance that you can offer would be appreciated. I would say that I have about five already that would meet all the criteria with the other references being there just to support specific facts. Akragas480 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Akragas480: Needs at least two more sources that meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Right now the Chicago Tribune is the only one. ––FormalDude talk 07:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Varo532 (07:19, 20 August 2022)

Hey how come my info on wikepedia gets deleted. --Varo532 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Varo532, did you see the message on your talk page from Diannaa? Your contributions were plagiarism. ––FormalDude talk 07:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Varo532 on Tiny Rascal Gang (09:33, 20 August 2022)

How can I put the other half of the info where it says article under Allie’s and rivals to expand the paragraph to make it more readable. --Varo532 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Varo532: What do you mean? What's the "other half"? ––FormalDude talk 10:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Varo532 on User talk:FormalDude (15:35, 20 August 2022)

After it says the largest Asian street gang in the United states --Varo532 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert and warning

Your revert of various recent edits of the Jonathan King article was in error, and your subsequent 'warning' was inappropriate.

Despite your claim, no content had been removed. Rather, content had been moved to more appropriate sections. Also, contrary to your claim the moving of the content was noted in the edit summaries. Also, your revert added MoS & punctuation errors, and rather hypercritically removed a small amount of content.

Your hypercorrection has been reverted. Please do not revert this change. Please take greater care in the future with both edits and posting inappropriate comments. 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:BC00:9404:314E:8CAC (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. ––FormalDude talk 19:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Olivia Newton-John on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi FormalDude,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

BloxyColaSweet

From, BloxyColaSweet

BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Comments from banned user

Surely US president ordered you cancel our Vietnam ? You are so blind that you dont want I can work ? US people always like racist, dont you ? So when you see Vietnamese texts, you want to cancel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC) @Betabum: Retract your personal attack or you'll be reported. ––FormalDude talk 01:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC) You blasphemed Vietnam and you had better to have a confession. Why I must served you while you blasphemed my country ? US invaded Vietnam twice and killed good people, but we forgave. However, today young Americans still see us as enemies that must be eliminated from the universe. He saw that I had bad English and attacked me.

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Aleksandr Dugin on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Violet B. Haas on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Business Insider RfC

I see that you closed an RfC on the reliability of Business Insider's news reporting. You stated that Most concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. Would you please expand a bit regarding how you came to conclude that? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I think a lot of the arguments in this discussion did not acknowledge the precise scope of the question, which asked editors to evaluate the news section rather than Business Insider in general. Some of the complaints were about past mistakes, but those were refuted by the clear recent improvement of their coverage over the last few years. Ultimately there was a strong argument supporting their news coverage being reliable, and no good rebuttal to that. ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There were several rational arguments made that the Pulitzer win for "Illustrated reporting" was not sufficient to ignore the issues that the source has had and the reputation that it maintained, including evidence from RS that the journalism of BI is in a significantly lower league than that of, say, Politico. With respect, I believe that totally discounting the evidence that individuals such as myself, VickKiang, JBchrch, and Chetsford presented was not warranted whatsoever and amounts to a WP:SUPERVOTE—something that is especially concerning as you have previously !voted in favor of the general reliability of Business Insider's culture section in a prior RfC. I would kindly ask that you self-revert your involved close. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Complaints about their content outside of their news section must be discounted given the scope of the RfC. And I hardly think a comment from nearly a year ago makes me involved. I will not be reverting my closure based on these concerns. ––FormalDude talk 05:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, Red-tailed hawk's arguments aren't complaints about their content outside of their news section (?) Also, IMO my argument isn't the best, but IMHO Red-tailed hawk's one is good, and probably stronger than some of the Option 1 votes (I think one of them use The Factual, a flawed ref, at least according to my POV, because it rates Washington Examiner better than The Economist or The New York Times), and IMO some additional considerations could be touched on in the closure summary. Many thanks still for this quick closure and replies! VickKiang (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk's comments complaints were not about BI's content outside of their news section, but much of JBchrch's and Chetsford's were. ––FormalDude talk 05:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Only commenting once because I was pinged: when someone pointed out that the discussion was about the news section, I said that there was no news section to speak of, which is relevant to a discussion about the reliability of a news section. Chetsford's points were about BI as a whole, which is relevant its news section as a part thereof. JBchrch talk 05:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In light of your decision to not withdraw an involved close, and the substantial issues with your close itself, I have opened a close challenge. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Close challenge of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#RfC: Business Insider news reporting. Thank you.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polyvagal theory on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Geoff Young

Hi @FormalDude, I had been editing Geoff Young's page for a few weeks, largely trying to reduce its reliance on WP:SPS and trying to keep it in line with WP:BLP. You blanked the page and redirected it today with the comment "Non-notable political candidate", and while I'm not sure he meets WP:NPOL, I'm not convinced he hasn't fulfilled the general notability guidelines through being a perennial candidate for a decade in Kentucky. Anyway, my main question was whether an AfD would be more appropriate than a blanking and redirect without discussion. I think there is enough sourcing to write a decent article on the guy, there was something like 30 WP:RS on the article and it seems odd to delete it without discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TulsaPoliticsFan it's a WP:BOLD move, which you are welcome to then revert as per WP:BRD. The proper action for FormalDude would be to then open a formal redirect/deletion discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to revert the change. While I do think he is close to meeting WP:GNG and if there was an AFD I'd probably vote keep, I'm very tired of reverting the same edits on the page everyday because other editors keep trying to add his YouTube channel and the Ballotpedia candidate survey as sources (which I think violates WP:SPS). Also, @Shibbolethink is definitely right on 30 being too high on the WP:RS count, I just glanced at the total number of sources when the article was blanked for that number. I think the actual WP:RS count is closer to a dozen sources on closer inspection. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what Shibbole said, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. If you restore the article I will most likely nominate it for AfD, as I do not believe that it meets notability guidelines. ––FormalDude talk 23:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I would say I think this guy actually does meet Wikipedia:GNG via articles like these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Are there a lot of bad non-RS cruft sources on that page also? Absolutely yes. but cruft sources in and of themselves do not mean a subject is non-notable, if there are high-quality RSes which have significant coverage. I definitely don't agree with @TulsaPoliticsFan that there were "30 RS" on the page. A lot of those are non-reliable e.g. ballotpedia, just facts, links to election results, etc. All that said, I think this is clearly a questionable article, I see why you blank/redirected it, and I would be curious to see the results of an AfD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see before reverting that there was already a discussion on this on a personal talk page. I thought all the discussion had been on the Talk:Geoff Young page. I had restored FormalDude's redirect (which by the way, was reverted by a Moscow IP with similarities to another Moscow IP editing the page). Although I see more points in support of the page here by TulsaPoliticsFan, who did good work on reducing WP:SPS, I would also support Shibbolethink's suggestion to have an AfD (with redirect as an option). -- Rauisuchian (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@TulsaPoliticsFan, Shibbolethink, and Rauisuchian: The redirect was reverted again, so I've opened an AfD. ––FormalDude talk 11:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Universal suffrage on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Your recent close of the BI RSN discussion

Hey man, I just wanted to add a few more words about what I said in closure review. I think, when it comes to discussions which are really contentious, and have lots of really strong opinionated voices, especially on a side I am considering closing against, but it's a grey area, I think I am (like many editors) inclined to either avoid closing it altogether or closing it as no-con rather than against those other participants. Because I would be fearful of the possibility that I get called out in the future in closure review. I say this knowing full well it makes me a chicken-shit lily-livered coward. I would avoid closing it, or give it hella hella more time, so that the consensus is robust against future challenges. Or I would send that hot potato firmly into somebody else's pocket. I don't think it reflects badly on you to be more BOLD with closes, absolutely I applaud you for being willing to close things like that. But I think I just personally wouldn't have done it because when it comes to wiki, I am very conservative about when I close things and how I close them, lol. Not necessarily a reflection on how you should close things. Just that maybe it would benefit you to protect against activists who disagree with your closures, even if it is a good thing to do controversial closures, do it in a way that makes it possible for you to keep doing controversial closures in a helpful and unimpeded way.

I hope everything is well with you in meatspace and I think back very fondly of what me and you and everyone were able to accomplish in the COVID-19 space! On my end: I'm prepping my applications to residency (hence my recent procrastination streak around here, as per usual) and just got back from a few different month-long stints working at hospitals in Boston and Seattle and San Diego! A lil sad to be back in the midwest, but so it goes.

Also here's the earworms I've had infecting me recently: [7] [8] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Shibbolethink, that's good advice. I don't think there are many discussions that I would avoid closing because of the risk of blowback from its participants, but there are certainly ones that I wouldn't close because of their controversy. I also don't really find too much of an impediment to my closure abilities from this, on the contrary, I expect my closures to be evaluated by other editors and occasionally challenged–it's a great way to learn and improve. I can respect your approach to closures though and I presume that is a more standard approach to controversial NACs than what I practice.

I am doing fine in meatspace. Those COVID times were quite productive, it was enjoyable. I know what you mean when you say it's a little sad to be back in the midwest, lol. And thank you for the tunes! ––FormalDude talk 00:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, FormalDude. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HouseBlaster^talk 03:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Revert

Can you revert this edit please it is constructive and valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1991_Austin_yogurt_shop_killings&type=revision&diff=1105116280&oldid=1105112023 2601:206:301:4A90:BD82:7493:843A:4A4 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I respect your revert. But I wanted you to know that this IP is a sock of prolific sockmaster Cadeken. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken/Archive, who has created dozens of accounts and used even more IPs. The editing pattern is identical. IPs in southern California always pop up when a registered sock is blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Yes I saw your edit summary mentioning that, but this account has not yet been banned, and the edit was constructive. Feel free to report them to a checkuser or start an SPI though. ––FormalDude talk 23:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I do report registered accounts to SPI. It's pointless to report an IP because they are rarely blocked for sockpuppetry. But thanks for your reply. If I may suggest, check the location of an IP that asks you to revert in an article that is about mass killings or other violent crimes. If it's located in southern California, it's almost certainly a sock of Cadeken. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. ––FormalDude talk 23:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

I believed the discussion close was in error, there has been a ton of recent discussion on the subject. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Watercheetah99: Where has there been "a ton of recent discussion"? I'm not seeing anything on the talk page within the last month. ––FormalDude talk 04:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should’ve linked it. The discussion was mainly on talk pages, most formally on the WikiProject Politics talk page. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Watercheetah99: Ah, I see, thanks. I've undone my closure of the RfC. You might consider adding two options at the top of the RfC in bold in order to make clear what it is people are being asked to choose between. Also, don't forget to notify the relevant WikiProjects of your RfC. ––FormalDude talk 04:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Mishraabhay480 on Darknet market (06:59, 25 August 2022)

Hello --Mishraabhay480 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mishraabhay480: Hi! Do you have a question I can help you with? ––FormalDude talk 07:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a serial killer

Ryan Scott Blinston is not a serial killer as he murdered three people but he did not kill anyone with a month gap between any of the murders and as a matter of fact his entire spree did not even last one month so he can’t be a serial killer, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them. but this idiot named Dev1357 keeps changing him to serial killer. --2601:206:301:4A90:3EA:7083:65E7:F899 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The article does not currently call him a serial killer, though I don't think that would be a problem as I see multiple reliable sources that call him that. ––FormalDude talk 03:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Followyoursoul (07:57, 26 August 2022)

Hello! My draft about 'Cristina Jacob - film director' was declined based on the reason that the subject is not qualified for a Wikipedia article. I used many reliable sources that are independent of the subject. On the other hand, Cristina Jacob is a well-known film director, with several box office records of her films, so the subject qualifies for Wikipedia. I would like this dispute to be solved and the article to be published, as it respects Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate a third opinion or review on my article. Thank you! --Followyoursoul (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Followyoursoul: Overall it looks like a notable topic. The main issue I see right now is WP:COPYQUOTE, as the article uses several long quotes. A long quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. An article should also not be made up of mostly quotes–consider paraphrasing the quotes in your own words instead. I made an edit to the article where I changed one quote into a paraphrase as an example. Lastly, the prose in the lead section may be better presented as a list in other sections. If you can address these issues, I'd probably accept the draft. ––FormalDude talk 08:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will edit according to your indications and resubmit the article asap. Followyoursoul (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello again! I edited my draft (Cristina Jacob - Film Director) following your indications and I resubmitted it. Please, can you check it and if everything is ok, accept it? Thank you very much for your help! Followyoursoul (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Followyoursoul: Accepted. Left a message on your talk page too. ––FormalDude talk 03:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton at FAR

Hi, regarding your notification on my Talk Page. I have not contributed to this article. Perhaps you have mistaken me for another editor? Graham Beards (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: I just notified you because you were the one to accept/promote the article to FA status. ––FormalDude talk 10:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have promoted hundred's of FACs. There is no need to notify the FA delegates about articles at FAR; they have enough to do already. FAC is not like GA noms. Graham Beards (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the info. ––FormalDude talk 11:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

= canvassing = on Geoff Young

Wp ars wp russia wp 2022 elections former editors who edited the page. You sir contacted 3 editors

How do I add the canvassing template to you? — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.168.167 (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you.

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you.

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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.