User talk:Schazjmd

Non Sequitur?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_family&diff=1184610165&oldid=1184599131 Lau737 (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lau737, you added the same content about unhappy marriages and depression to multiple articles. While that content might be relevant to Divorce and Marriage, it did not make sense in Nuclear family#"Traditional" North American family. My edit summary was referring to the literary meaning of non sequitur, but it would have been clearer if I'd written "not relevant to this context" so I apologize for not using that clearer explanation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be anywhere. Then again the submission is short and all those pages have sections of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lau737 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Betty R. King, You, Me & EVERYBODY else.

Why are you deleting Betty R. King's name? She been on this page for AGES. I didn't just add her for God's sake! Why are you not taking down Lisa Hart Carroll's name, too? She's in the cast... OR is she? She's not the subject of a Wikipedia article either. She doesn't have the classical Wikipedia #'s in [ ]'s citation bearer either. Go ahead, rip her name down, too. Why don't you take down Norman Bennett's, Troy Bishop's, Megan Morris' and Kate Charleston's names down while you're at it, as well. Go on, for they"re not "properly cited" either.

Don't believe these people exist? Go to IMDb.com and find out for yourself, and then delete--or NOT delete--them, too. (Or "cite" each one of them yourself, or, NOT.)

And, after that, you can then go to every Wikipedia page for a film and delete all of the names of all of the actors who don't link to a page on Wikipedia, IMDb.com, or any other online website that proves anyone and everyone exists. When you're through going through those God-knows-how-many-thousands-and-thousands-of-film-articles-and-lists of information, you can then move on to your starting to take down the uncited names of former 1970s Idaho county commissioners, obscure children's book authors, major league baseball players that played only two weeks in a season back in 1952, 19th-Century Catholic prelates who have served in dioceses in Finland, then follow that with every person whoever did voiceover radio work on "Little Orphan Annie" during the Great Depression. Delete them, OR cite them--I don't care.

But, for you to just delete Betty R. King's name off of all of these pages for films she was in? REALLY? You're NOT editing Wikipedia, but you ARE deleting artistic contributions (like Ms. King's), and you're also effectively destroying history, and doing so in a willful, malicious, discriminatory, and almost predatory fashion. Why are you following me around here and tossing out an elderly character actress' name (and actor's, for you, also, apparently, have something against the late British character actor and opera singer Byron Webster, for you deleted a number of his credits, too) and works, out the damned window? I have never had an experience like this before. Why are you being so truculent and extra-judicial with these minor information additions? Why don't just tear down every name of every uncited person or thing on Wikipedia while you're at it, for Pete's sake!

Wikipedia is supposed to be a universe of expanding knowledge, deepening learning, and done so through good-faith altruism, both voluntary and considerate, academic and subjective. So, stop acting like a black hole of history, mutualism, and sharing in this shared-by-all universe, or I will be forced to contact the proper and relevant administrative authorities of this website and deliver the necessary and requisite grievances apropos of this malice, inconsistency, bullying and methodological inconsistency, for it is NOT what Wikipedia is about and for, nor is it for you alone.

I'm simply here to share. Why you're here, I simply don't care.

Equal standards are supposed to apply to all, and what we are dealing with, in terms of expectations (and endearments) here, is possessing neither proportion nor fairness. 2600:1014:B073:93FB:B83D:F433:60A7:3649 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of hyperbole. You made an unsourced addition. Also, imdb is not a reliable source. See WP:CASTLIST. Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see I'm not the only victim of Troll the Deletor. His mom must be so proud. Juliendion (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Henry IV etc. re Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

I understand your reversion, though it's sad that I'm apparently the only person on the planet who ever realized the obvious connection to Falstaff. (I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia where someone is allowed to make an obvious connection between one media production and another, without having a secondary source verify it; but that doesn't always happen, obviously.) Have a pleasant evening. John315 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand, @John315. There is original research in articles across Wikipedia, but it isn't allowed, it just means another editor hasn't caught it yet. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Schazjmd! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @StarTrekker, and Merry Christmas to you as well!! Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Wishing you a spicy Christmas

Spicy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Editor experience invitation

Hi Schazjmd :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Clovermoss! I'm thinking over the questions and may or may not post the answers I come up with, but I appreciate being invited. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Schazjmd!

Happy New Year!

Schazjmd,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Abishe, and the same to you! Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts edit

Thanks for your tweaks to my edits of the article. You wrote "one person wrote a column, that doesn't equal 'some' " -- I agree I overreached there. I even agree it was fine to move my comments farther down in the article so they are not as prominent. However, I think that moving them down leads to an awkward transition --

Many indigenous peoples trace their ancestry to “star-people” or the like—extra-terrestrials who as the progenitors of indigenous peoples cannot by definition be white or “Aryan.” [28]

These claims are so outlandish that up until recently, mainstream archaeologists essentially ignored them as absurdities

Did you intentionally mean to imply that indigenous peoples' origin stories are outlandish? Then doesn't that implication just further demonstrate “Indigenous erasure"? There are probably at least some cultural anthropologists who would disagree with the notion that these claims are outlandish. They might not be "factual", but that does not give license to de-value them . Perhaps more measured language is needed here. TPleft (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate juxtaposition, @TPleft, thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@TPleft, I've relocated the text. The reason that I moved it into the body is because the purpose of the lead is to summarize the key points of the body of the article, not to introduce new information that isn't mentioned later. You can learn more about the Wikipedia approach at WP:LEAD and WP:Lead dos and don'ts. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

cat yronwode

I have no reason to be contentious, but I would like direction as to why you deleted my link from cat yronwode's Wikipedia web page to her business and research web page (Lucky Mojo Co.). Billfish (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I deleted it per WP:ELNO #19. Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Perry problem.

I've read that discussion page about why no one is allowed to mention 17 Again was Matthew's final film role all because of Rowing007 you agreed with. I know I had to confirm that it is 100% relevant that the film was his last and several users attempted to put back but Rowing kept removing it. I also tried to confront him but one of the admins Ivanvector tried to escalate me if I continue to make useless threats. Another admin Bsoyka also left me that nothing is allowed and I don't know how. This discussion has to end and confirm it that the film was his last. If not, God won't forgive me. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you any reliable sources that draw attention to 17 Again being Perry's final film role? The film was made so long before his death that it really seems like meaningless trivia. Anyone interested in knowing what his final film role was can check his filmography, but it isn't significant to the movie itself. The discussion at Talk:17_Again_(film)#Matthew_Perry's_final_film_appearance has ended, and consensus is against including it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that. And thanks a lot Rowing007. You did best. But whatever then. 😒 182.255.41.207 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Rod McKuen

Hello, if you would kindly click on the link in the citation I provided (linked here for your convenience), you will see that the inscription on the album cover specifically says: "'DON'T DRINK THE ORANGE JUICE' was written and recorded on March 25th - the natal day of Ms. O.J." OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The quality of the images makes it impossible to actually read the text, so I'll take your word for it. When you re-add the text, please note that in the prose: instead of "written and recorded on her birthday", say something like "which an inscription on the cover says was written and recorded on her birthday". Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I will add the attribution per your request. For future reference, if you open the webpage on your computer, you can right-click on the image to open a higher-resolution version in a separate tab, which is more readable. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I did that for the images when I checked the first time, the text is illegible. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to send you a higher resolution version if you would like - simply let me know. I have the higher resolution version downloaded. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@OiYoiYoink, thanks but not necessary. Like I said, I trust you on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that :) OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

I note your recent edit of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was reverted by the same unregistered user. This appears to be a wider issue with this editor, refer my comments at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ilenart626, I'll take a look at that, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Wise German ancestry

I read the section (p. 42-44) as implying he had German ancestry. The passage begins "Many German-speaking Jewish and non-Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution came to southern California, as well as to New York... Although a number returned to Europe after the war, many stayed and made important contributions to the arts and the intellectual life of the region... There are numerous other examples of German contributions to Hollywood and also to Broadway." All persons mentioned in the section were either born in German-speaking Europe, as can be ascertained from their Wikipedia articles: Bertolt Brecht, Lion Feuchtwanger, Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, Alma Mahler, Franz Werfel, Frederick Loewe, Felix Salten, and Friedrich Gerstäcker, or were descendants of Germans/German-speaking Jews: Walt Disney, Gene Kelly, Alan Jay Lerner (couldn't find anything about his ancestry, but he had a German/Jewish surname), Richard Rodgers, and Oscar Hammerstein II. Now, it would be wierd mentioning Robert Wise in this section which claims "There are numerous other examples of German contributions to Hollywood and also to Broadway", and then goes on to mention exactly that if Wise didn't actually have German ancestry, which he obviously did (his mother's name was Longenecker). Wise's featured IMDB biography states "His parents were both of Pennsylvania Dutch (German) descent.". This claim has been repeated on a few potentially unreliable websites The IMDB biography was written by a Lukas Fichtinger of HTL Braunau. I haven't been able to verify the claim of Wise's Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. I sent a message to the contact address mentioned in the IMDB biography, but it didn't deliver: Host or domain name not found. I believe the claim might come from the book "Robert Wise: A Bio-Bibliography", though I haven't been able to verify this either. What are your thoughts? Endebyrd (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You're quoting the lead to the previous paragraph. The paragraph that mentions Wise says:

"The export of Broadway and Hollywood products, especially to Europe, is well known. One of the most interesting examples of this is the Sound of Music phenomenon."

It then goes on to mention the two versions of The Sound of Music. I don't the context is clear enough to assume every name mentioned in that pdf has German ancestry. IMDB is not a reliable source. And please don't ever consider "it's a German name" as evidence of ancestry.

If you check that book and find content supporting his various ancestries, great. Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware IMDB isn't a reliable source, I mentioned it for context. It was the only direct claim of German ancestry i could find online, but as it's origins remains unclear, I agree that more research is needed to confirm or deny the claim. Endebyrd (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Request

Hello. In Swingin' with My Eyes Closed page I found out that Metro is a tabloid newspaper per WP:RSPSOURCES. Would you remove it? Regards. 2001:D08:2901:1C81:17AD:52FF:66B2:D7C (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

General Collective Intelligence

I am removing your comment that a reference I cited failed verification. Before adding your comment again, I ask that you please elaborate on why you flagged the following statement in the draft article as having failed verification: "The term "Collective General Intelligence" platform originated in 2018 with behavioral scientist Johannes Castner.^{[failed verification]}". The reference provided clearly identifies the researcher's use of the term, and a search of the literature on Google Scholar does not reveal any earlier uses of the term within the same context. CognitiveMMA (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@CognitiveMMA, see the draft's talk page, where I posted earlier today about the first three refs you cited and what the problems with them were. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleopatra

It is good that you have done the thing of making the changes, I recognize and will not discuss what could have been given as speculation on my part, however you are not being impartial. On the Internet there are hundreds of memes echoing that situation, also on YouTube, millions of views on the videos where he states without arguments or evidence, and only because his grandmother said it, that no matter what others said (just as the quote ) Cleopatra was black, even though she herself says that they do not know the queen's race, I will reissue the correct wording with greater seriousness and more effort and with another quote. It is not a direct attack on her, it is a part of what was made known, as I said there are thousands of videos with millions of views of her comments, which surpass her works, therefore it is a situation that must be commented on, and therefore I will not stop, I am not speaking without evidence, I am arguing and presenting references. Good Day Dericiana (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dericiana, memes are not a significant item worth mentioning in an article about a person unless independent reliable sources have given attention to them. Same with YouTube videos. Your edits to the article must only summarize what reliable sources have written, and your summary must be a neutral reflection of what the source says. Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't delete something just because you don't like it, if it is referenced and with evidence

Memes have become part of popular culture and Wikipedia has also allowed them. A great example is the case of Natalia Poklonskaya, where she has a whole section about it on Wikipedia. Now the clip is conclusive proof, it is not invented, she appears in that video and her words are literal without interpretations, she is not putting herself out of place, because part of what is explained about her participation in the program from Netflix Dericiana (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dericiana, I'm afraid you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are multiple sources writing about Poklonskaya's internet "celebrity", that gives it significance worth mentioning in her article. I am not denying and the sources are not denying that she said that sentence. The sources also place it in the greater context of the full documentary, and that's what our article should summarize. You'll also notice that in the edited clip, she doesn't say she believed it; all she says is her grandmother told her that. So what? Please stick to what the sources say. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So do I have to put the episode on Netflix? Because she says it literally. But tell me, do you reverse it because you have a preference towards her? That is not very neutral, I am not attacking her, I am not offending her, I AM NOT LYING, but you only revert because you want to hide the truth, I am no longer saying that it is a meme, nor that her null objectivity is in doubt when There are dozens of videos of historians who question their objectivity, I only write what is true, explain to me why you can choose the words that should be put Dericiana (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dericiana, nobody is disputing that she said it. The article already states that she said her grandmother told her that. To say she "literally" said it is redundant. To say that she said it "without arguments" is false; that is not the entirety of what she said about Cleopatra's ethnic background in the documentary, as the WaPo source covers. For your other question, I've never heard of Haley outside of watching the article, I've not seen the documentary, and I have no interest in Cleopatra's ethnic background. Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing with this, I am not an Internet Troll nor do I follow a political current like you, I will stop editing, but I was clear when I said that I would not stop, I will do my work on other pages contributing, such as for example I will quote Halley on the wikipedia meme page, and also on the Cleopatra race discussion, I have 20 pages in view, if you're looking to undo my changes on all of them, good luck, but I have the sources and evidence plus make my changes. Good day Dericiana (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And no, unlike you, who obviously pursue a politically correct goal and that clouds your impartiality, I am not a supporter of a political goal, I am not a supremacist who wants to offend people because of their gender, preference or ethnicity, I I publish and edit, in terms of truth I see no difference between Hitler and Anne Frank, well that is impartiality, if someone said that Halley is a murderer, they will edit it, well obviously if there is no evidence it is a lie. Dericiana (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Fellow Editor Not Cooperating

I've been on an "editing war" with Adam Cuerden he insists that his off center image be on Theodore Roosevelt's bio template. When I asked him to fix it he did not. So I removed the image and added a centered one. He then removed it again. I need an administrator to block his use of Theodore Roosevelt's wiki page since he adamantly will not cooperate. Please help resolve this issue. Thanks Simmons1998 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Simmons1998, I'm not an administrator, but I suggest your best approach is to join the discussion on the lead image at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt (where other editors have been discussing the photo) and express your concerns there. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Thanks for the change on Wizkid's article. But I didn't misqoute, the Vanguard article qoutes he was honoured based on 'his achievements in music which has inspired Minnesotans and fans from all over the world, and his role as one of the biggest cultural influencers ever.' About the case study thing, I'm sorry I didn't check whether the University was mentioned, cuz I've heard about it before. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages: you did misquote it. Mark Dayton didn't declare such thing, as you reported, the magazine Vanguard did. Please stop misquoting, you've been warned at least 20 times in the last week. What more do you need to stop doing that? DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @DollysOnMyMind. @Yotrages, if you cannot tell the difference between a direct quote by the governor and the source paraphrasing the governor's words, you may not have the competence to edit Wikipedia articles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind: I have been warned of that only by two editors, stop the hyperbole about 20 times. And how am I to know whether Vanguard is writing on their own, when they're quoting the Governor per the article? So it wasn't really my fault, it was Vanguard's. You could have just trimmed and corrected the error like Schazjmd did, but you choosed to delete it, that's why we're not friends. Yotrages (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages, you removed my comment; never do that. As to how are you to know? By reading the source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been warned of that only by two editors — that should be more than enough to stop doing such thing, but apparently, it's not. And by the way, more than two editors warned you for that, and the times you've been warned about it is about 20 times. Do you want me to mention them all? I will be glad to do so if you ask me to do such thing DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Sorry for that, it's a mistake by my browser. Yotrages (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages, @DollysOnMyMind, both of you need to read WP:EW and WP:BRD. When you make an edit that is reverted by another editor, start a discussion on the article talk page. This applies to all articles, but I noticed it most recently at Chris Brown. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that with these edits (1, 2) by Nigerian IPs, Yotrages Is voluntarily abusing of multiple accounts. I would like to have your opinion on this. To me it's an unacceptable behavior DollysOnMyMind (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind, the first edit seems to clearly be Yotrages. The second is ambiguous; the edit summary might be the honest opinion of a third party or it might be Yotrages trying to make it seem that the IP is not Yotrages. Editing while logged out isn't strictly forbidden, it just depends on how you edit while you're logged out. You could add those edits to your ANI report. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Really appreciate the suggestion. If the dude continues, I will definitely do that DollysOnMyMind (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is very absurd, this is one of the most humiliating things I've ever been accused of. Did you think I'm crazy, that I'll edit and still warn myself to work things out with you? Accusing me of those 2 IP's cuz you traced they're from Nigeria doesn't mean I own them!! My IP address is 105.115.1.25 so it's different from them, and I've never used it to edit (you can cross check). The articles are for Nigerian artists, so Nigerian IP's are going to edit it. Per your logic, I can accuse you of using any South African IP's that edit on Wikipedia. The second case @DollysOnMyMind: removed a content that an RFC has been reached for [1], which is bad and can deprive him of editing privilege. The third case is that, he has been adding rubbish, unnecessary and unreliable content to Chris Brown's article. Using Justin Bieber as a critics, and calling me a troll on his talk page, while reverting me and other editors on the page. Yotrages (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind reverting everything you dont like on Wikipedia, is not a good way of editing. That IP has edited Rema's page a day before I saw it. After checking both the opinion on the RFC and his or her trims, I closed the RFC. But you deleted it to the way you wanted, even though other editors opined it must be trimmed to a paragraph. You really need to change. I don't care how much time you reported those stupid things you're documenting, cuz lots of them is you accusing me of what I didn't do, like saying I sneakily deleted Schazjmd reply, in which I apologized and told him what happen. I just don't have many time to discuss with you, cuz I got things to do, than arguing about little stuffs like this. Yotrages (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Great to see this! Let's see what other editors think as well then DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I think both of you need to reconsider your approaches to editing on wikipedia. My advice: @Yotrages:, you need to pay closer attention to what sources actually say, summarize them fairly and accurately, and discuss calmly and civilly on article talk pages when another editor disagrees. @DollysOnMyMind:, you need to stop personalizing these disputes; your "dummy" edit just to snipe at Yotrages in the edit summary is not constructive. Stay off each other's talk pages; stick to content- and source-based discussions on article talk pages so other editors can participate.

Sometimes, even when you're sure that you're correct, other editors are going to disagree. You won't always get your way in content disputes. You need to find constructive ways to deal with that.

I am closing this thread. Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP noticeboard on Grover Furr

Hi Schazjmd. I'm really sorry to bother you, but I didn't fully understand your comment on the Grover Furr thread. I don't fully understand what text should be taken out. Sorry again and thank you for your time.Stix1776 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stix1776, the current text is:

Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history,...

My suggestion at RSN was:

Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history,...

However, I see that there is an active discussion at Talk:Grover Furr about the lead, so the editors more familiar with the article and already involved in that discussion should reach consensus on what to do. Schazjmd (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input. I appreciate all your effort.

The other guy is being pretty edit warry, but I'm trying not to drag anyone else in if I can help it.Stix1776 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI closure

Are you sure about this closure? The editor has, so far, been non-responsive. They've been invited to ANI, and then blocked from editing the article to further encourage them to communicate. And you've shut down the thread very quickly, discouraging them from communicating. That seems sub-optimal to me. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I've reverted it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

hey whyd you remove my pitt edits?

i gave three sources for the age difference, he was 27 and she was 17 when they dated. NotQualified (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

His relationship with her is already mentioned and sourced in the personal relationships section, adding another section to say the same thing is redundant and WP:UNDUE. You cited Page Six, which is considered generally unreliable (WP:PAGESIX). You added wikilinks to section headings which is not allowed. You added unsourced content, including claims of ephebophilia without a reliable source.

Please also see the warning banner when you view the source for Brad Pitt or any other BLP:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

You need a high-quality source that explicitly connects Pitt with ephebophilia. Schazjmd (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i added new sources, can you verify again? also, by definition the age gap is ephebophilic. that would be like if a 20 year old man dated a 2 year old baby and i had to source how that was pedophilic.

> "adding another section to say the same thing is redundant"

is it? the heading there was about ephebophilia, not lewis. that definitely warrants its own heading and is a very serious, damning thing.

> wikilinks to section headings which is not allowed; You cited Page Six, which is considered generally unreliable (WP:PAGESIX).

i was unfamiliar with this, thank you

> Please also see the warning banner when you view the source for Brad Pitt or any other BLP:

right, well i added new sources but was unfamiliar with the procedures so can you verify again? also, by definition the age gap is ephebophilic. that would be like if a 20 year old man dated a 2 year old baby and i had to source how that was pedophilic. it, by its nature, is. the only thing i need to prove here is that he was 27 and she was 17, that is widely publicised public information, which needs its own heading. if youre expecting me to find an article where he admits he's an ephebophile not only would that be impossible but redundant, it is self-evident and thus not libel. are you trying to suggest their dating was exclusively platonic??? NotQualified (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You need a high-quality source that explicitly connects Pitt with ephebophilia. You cannot apply a contentious label to a BLP without a reliable source. If you believe that it is self-evident based solely on ages at the time that they dated, you're welcome to start a discussion at Talk:Brad Pitt and see if you get consensus among other editors that the label can be added without any reliable sources describing their relationship that way. Schazjmd (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@NotQualified, you could also post the question at WP:BLPN and see if editors there agree with you. Schazjmd (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for the help!! i will link to this discussion so they understand the context NotQualified (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for your help again! Is always room to improve. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

DEBASHISH CHATTERJEE

Chatterjee, for whom , you credited a Ph.d in Management has no Ph.D in Management. He is the boss of his institute where he has claimed / wrongfully written that he has a Ph.D in Management.

please check this information with University of Pune from where he has got a Ph.D in Psychology/ humanities and correct the information. Ask for the ph.d certificate from Chatterjee for verification (he can show this posting online).

please fix the wrong information given. Jimsocial (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jimsocial, please bring up your concerns at Talk:Debashis Chatterjee. I restored the information that is supported by the cited source. Your changes were unsourced. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:Veriability and WP:RS. If those exist, then WP:Truth would apply. If they do not, then it shouldn't be there. I agree. It all belongs on the article's talk page, where it can be sorted out. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Auzandil

I'm telling you, I'm not adding information from myself, I'm just returning the version of the article to the one that was before the user Auzandil. There is no contribution on my part so that I give them sources, I return an article written from the attached sources, which was consensual for a long time and satisfied everyone until an expert in the field of all languages appeared Auzandil Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Artem Petrov CHV, when an editor brings sources and suggested changes to an article, if you want to object to them, then you need to engage with their comments. It's not enough to simply state that's how the article was before. What sources do you have that counter the ones they're citing? Is there a problem with their sources? These are questions you need to address in that talk page discussion. If you don't want to discuss the reliability of their sources and their summary of what those sources say, then don't revert their edits. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

improper closure

Have a fine day! I am asking that you review and undo your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes; per WP:WITHDRAWN, a discussion should not be closed just because the nominator withdrew their nomination if there is not a uniformity of response, which clearly there was not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. I had to do it manually because of subsequent edits, so please feel free to make any corrections to my edit if there are any problems with it, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Pyrex

I saw the internal email about the sale of Pyrex but I am not sure if I am allowed to publish the document. What is the best way to handle? 2600:1016:B025:A5E3:710E:D6BA:CEFD:F650 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid an internal email can't be used as a source. We'll just have to wait until there's a public announcement or business journalism writes about it. Sorry! Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and making Wiki accurate. Pyrex5551212 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Greek Source (19:40, 20 May 2024)

I Need to name an article and make it public. --Greek Source (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Greek Source and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm guessing that you're interested in turning User:67.84.25.17/sandbox into an article, correct? What you should do is start a draft at Draft:Oōficus Lmåoskï and then submit it. Unfortunately, I've had to remove two paragraphs from that sandbox because it violates copyright, since it's copy-and-pasted from this site. Content in articles must be in the editor's own words, except for direct quotes (which are attributed and sourced). I'll put an educational template on your talk page that gives more explanation. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My Apologies

Hello, @Schazjmd. I hope you are well. I did not look into the In lulz we trust article further. Thus, I was under the assumption that the person behind the IP address 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E was vandalizing the page. Thank you for understanding. A Proud Alabamian (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@A Proud Alabamian, just please take more care with your reversions. There was nothing wrong with that edit so I don't understand why you reverted it four times. Schazjmd (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I thought it was vandalism, which is why I reverted it. I was only looking out for the project. A Proud Alabamian (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@A Proud Alabamian: That makes sense. I understand why you thought it was vandalism. Thank you. 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)