User talk:RunnyAmiga

AIV

Curses! I could have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling IPs and that mangy dog! RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: If you're not taking that sort of thing as a badge of honor you're doing Wikipedia wrong. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I had a good chuckle over it, that's for sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Word demagogue

With regard to demagogue, since anyone with eyes and ears currently living in the United States knows the statement to be true, why don't you improve the article by adding a source rather than reduce the information content? I didn't find a web link, only seeing it in television news, but as it's obvious that it exists, why not you make it better instead of worse? 68.184.205.133 (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Read #2 at WP:NOTNEWS for why you're the latest in a long, long line of people who I've prevented from getting Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump (or both) listed there. That article becomes markedly worse when people try to add either person. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 13:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

WTF with Ronald?

It wasn't vandalism. I've added info about a popular meme. I was asked for refs, I've given them. On the first ref one can see a brief explanation of the subj. On another ones its relation to Microsoft and Ronald can be seen. Significance is self-evident from the its popularity and the images from Google Search is the sign of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.17.89 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

1. Your sources are all either Google searches or some sketchy Russian website I won't be clicking. I have no idea if any of your sources are reliable but since it's about a Ronald McDonald meme, I'm pretty confident they aren't.
2. The use of the word "sperm" in close proximity to a character meant to entertain children is completely fucking disgusting.
3. And to call it like it is, nobody really cares about Ronald McDonald as some "unofficial mascot." If it's unofficial, it's likely not important.

For that matter, don't think I haven't noticed that you waited until you were given a last warning to start defending your edit. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

David Petraeus

RunnyAmiga. Your references do not say that linkedin or self published sources are not acceptable. It says generally. In this case because there is a published source from the user AND the actual institution; it should be acceptable. I will leave it to you to decide if you want to put it back after researching it yourself. Realize this is an article which incorrectly described political affiliation for over 15 years. Validity on wikipedia isn't always what it should be.

I absolutely appreciate your help and attention. uaflyer (talk · contribs)

@Uaflyer: WP:RSSELF says we can't use "personal pages on social networking sites" which exactly describes Petraeus's LI page, whether or not he wrote it himself. #5 at WP:PROMO says Wikipedia isn't to be used for "Advertising, marketing or public relations," which is what the link to the institution's website is. That page is a press release, and not only are press releases not good sources for what to include, they're (in a way) good resources for what not to include since if what they were saying were important, we wouldn't need to disseminate a press release to support it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur

Hello, I would like to make the change to Brodeur's page, because he is a dual citizen of Canada and America. Its a known fact to, you can look it up, and it was stated by the official NHL and official ESPN sites a couple years back. Its important to stat that he is both an American and Canadian citizen. He was born in Canada and now lives in the United States as an official citizen. On that same page, under personal life, it states that Brodeur is an official U.S. citizen, so it should be changed in his bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.178.166 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea if this information is appropriate for the opening paragraph or not. The issue I had is that you were inserting information without a source. And we still don't have a good source, since the claim is backed up by a story in the trash tabloid New York Post. I'll use it for the text you added and, since I couldn't find the ESPN story you mentioned, I'll look for a source that isn't junk. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodney Anderson (Texas Politician)

I just spent considerable time introducing some important detail regarding this politician's entry in Wikipedia. Citations were provided. Please let me know how I might fix them to better meet your requirements and your impressions of them. Thank you RunnyAmiga! TXDemocrat (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@TXDemocrat: You "introduc[ed] some important detail?" No, you absolutely did not. You "spent considerable time" compiling tons and tons of opposition research and you slathered it all over an article with little regard for several policies and guidelines, including WP:READABILITY, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and most importantly, WP:NPOV. I won't ask you if you're here to sincerely improve that article because you're not. You're here to grind a political axe, and since we try to be fair, we don't want editors who are motivated like that. If I'm wrong, prove it: create the article for his upcoming opponent, Terry Meza, then add reams of negative oppo research to it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga My apologies for violating policies. The article as written is very biased in that it doesn't include legislation that impacted his house district in dangerous ways. I will try again with more moderation. Thank you. I am here to provide more accuracy for the article. I can understand why you might think that I am "grinding a political axe" simply because of my user name. His opponent is not a member of our community and has never served in the Texas legislature so I prefer to add details about our neighbor. But I do see your point. I will start over. TXDemocrat (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for helping me! TXDemocrat (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My comment

There's no tone on the internet so let me preface this by saying this is a fun friendly comment. I laughed very hard to your reply to my Crispus Attucks. Seriously, we may disagree on Ken Bone but you found a funny way to do so while having some personality and keeping it light without being personal. I wish more wikipedians were like you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Windows 10 edit revert

Hi I'm wondering what we have to do to get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_10&type=revision&diff=745529536&oldid=745522221 reverted again?

Some users have approached me asking me about it.

Why did you revert it?

The user explained it well.

Paladox (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paladox: User:Athens ms has an obnoxious habit of never using the edit summary box. My revert has an edit summary reading "unexplained changes/removals", which I think pretty clearly answers your question of how to retain that edit.

I regularly patrol the list of articles under pending changes protection and Windows 10 is one of them. When I'm reviewing the backlog of pending edits, I revert almost every edit without a summary for the same reason. It's not my responsibility to look around for talk page posts; its the editor's responsibility to take four seconds to fill out that box. If the edits are important enough to be included, they're important enough to be summarized. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for responding, but you should not be reverting any edits because they doint use the edit box, I doint see anywhere that states an wikipediaian must use that box, you should only be reverting if the information is not credible or is spam. Paladox (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paladox: The edit summary box isn't mandatory and I never said it was. But just because you don't have to use it doesn't mean you shouldn't. That edit wasn't plainly, obviously helpful and combined with the empty summary box, I'm automatically skeptical. If the edit is valuable, why is it so important to you that you be allowed to do it without explaining it? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

it's not important, but I am being asked. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting Paladox (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

But also the same applies for reverting, just because a user doesn't use that box doesn't mean you revert either. Paladox (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paladox: Yes, it does, and I've explained why. There's no good reason not to explain what you're doing. (There's also no good reason to fight this hard against explaining what you're doing.) So since I'm not going to change how I do things, why not advise User:Athens ms to start explaining their edits? Because like I said earlier, typing out a summary ought to take four seconds. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Troy Southgate IP

Just to say I've blocked the IP, for a year all they've done is spammed Southgate and his Black Front Press. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I agree with this block 100%. And thank you for this note. I'd actually forgotten how sensitive that article is and this will help me remember to be ready if this person reappears under a different identity. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Double Dragon

I could have sworn that there's some sort of guideline somewhere that states bypassing redirects that are {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}s is unnecessary and could potentially create more work for editors in the event that the term's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC changes ... but I'm not in any mood to press the matter, nor in any mood to find what I'm talking about since I just tried to look for it and couldn't find anything. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: My guess was that you're thinking of WP:NOTBROKE but I'm not positive that I'm right. Was that it? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems like what I was looking for. I mean, such of an example as the situation with the edit in Double Dragon isn't referenced there, but it is only one edit, and I'm not certain if there ever will be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC change, so as far as I'm concerned, it is what it is. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI

"Gunshot wound" as a cause of death is correct. As an example, the Christina Grimmie OPD summary specifically states, Christina suffered a gunshot wound to the side of her head. The entrance wound had stippling surrounding it, which indicates the bullet was fired in close range of the victim. This wound was fatal. "Gunshot" literally describes the result of firing a gun. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: I always think in situations like this that maybe it's me; either I'm too sensitive or I value doing things my way too much. That could be the case here. In fact, it probably is true that I'm way too ready to revert changes to Barsi's infobox. That can present a problem.

But when I see stuff like that, I wonder why we're getting this far into the nuts and bolts of the "cause of death" infobox parameter there. Is it worth going back and forth on the text we use to explain the tragic, terrifying end of that kid's life? I didn't revert that because it was factually incorrect. I reverted it because it was cruel and gross. That infobox, as you know better than probably anybody else, has been under attack for a long time by that vandalizing "she bore him a child" idiot who insists on edits that, whether accurate or not, are completely morbid and disgusting. Can't we just take a step back, realize that the infobox says "gunshot," and that perfectly gets across all the publicly available information on how Barsi's life ended? Anybody reading that comes away knowing what happened with no additional information, so to me, adding anything else is pointless at best and since it's to a ten-year-old murder victim's article, it's far worse than merely pointless: it's this lurid, shameless rubbernecking that, whether or not it's you-know-who doing it, has been a problem at that article for far too long. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 13:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(To AldezD as well:) I'm all too unfortunately engaged with the "she bore him" vandal, as you point out; much of that work has been to remove bloat from the infoboxes, also as you're kind enough to note. That said, when data is included within the infobox, I believe we're all bound by Wiki policies that it be accurate. In this case, it is simply incorrect to state that the result of firing a gun killed the article's subject; technically, it's the exsanguination caused by the bullet wound. See the Crime Museum explanation, for one. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: I want to know your thoughts, not stuff from policy or an outside link: what information is a typical reader getting from "gunshot wound" that they're not getting from "gunshot?" I don't think there is anything. What do you think? Am I wrong?

If we were just parsing the letters and words, I wouldn't be fighting this hard. But if this gets escalated, I'll push for "gunshot" because I sincerely believe it means the same thing as your preferred phrase, "gunshot wound," and User:AldezD's choice, "homicide by shooting," with the difference being that the latter two are creepy and lurid. You can hit me sources, policy, precedent, and whatever else but you're not convincing me that any of that overrules a basic obligation to do what's good and humane at the article of a ten-year-old girl who was murdered. So the policy I'm going with is WP:IAR, which somehow I always incorrectly thought was just a guideline. I'm also going with WP:DENY with regards to Mister Edit Filter 770. From time to time, I go back and check his additions because I want to do the right thing, and his edits are handy lists of edits that decent people shouldn't be making. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts are that we be correct—and that being correct improves the encyclopedia. The entire purpose of the IB is a succinct, at-a-glace summary of the subject; and some people are dead-set against using IBs at all. If used, however, it should be correct—and "gunshot" is not correct, while "homicide by gunshot" certainly is not. I prefer ballistic trauma myself, but other editors have changed it back. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: The word "gunshot" is not incorrect because nobody is reading it and coming away with an incorrect understanding of what happened. Don't think I'm not noticing that I've asked this repeatedly and it just kind of keeps getting ignored: what facts are readers not getting when the word "gunshot," rather than anything else, is used? And if the answer is "there aren't any," where's the inaccuracy?

So I think we're at an impasse. If you can't see how a term like "ballistic trauma" on a ten-year-old child's article is a completely inappropriate, completely unacceptable way to go forward, I don't foresee either of us coming up with a compromise. If this gets escalated further, I think it's going to get uglier than either of us would want it to. This sucks. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we're at an impasse. We're an encyclopedia and we deign to be correct; meantime, Wikipedia is not censored, and a cause of death is a cause of death, regardless of the age of the deceased. At any rate, this was a pleasant discussion, and cheers to you. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I should mention one other thing before I forget: your explanation that the reader sees "gunshot" and gets it, so to speak, is the reason I didn't change it back again. The problem lies in that there's a reasonable chance that someone else will. If you revert a change that is literally accurate, an editor could argue that you proceed from "I don't like it", which would hurt your position in any dispute. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: I could argue the same thing vis-a-vis IDHT because going purely on content, I don't understand why "gunshot" is inaccurate. Edit wars at that infobox need to stop somewhere, and why would I put a stop to them with anything but what I think it should say? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Homicide is the cause of death, similarly to how cause of death is mentioned in articles for Phil Hartman and Bob Crane. AldezD (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@AldezD: Reading this whole thread might seem imposing but it won't take long, and you'll learn why I want Barsi's article to say "gunshot." Crane, Hartman, and Christina Grimmie aren't necessarily relevant but since I didn't dispute what any of these people's cause of death was, explaining that it's homicide isn't really a valuable reaction to anything that's been said here. Regarding Barsi, there are three opinions, they're each miles apart from the others, as to what it says and it's clear this thread isn't going to form consensus, let alone a compromise. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Love and hip hip

Those anonymous users just won't stop bothering things!! I just checked and he keeps adding them back to he domestic installments and other anonymous be users keep messing up the other pages with nonsense!! We need to figure out how to protect these pages from anonymous users, because they keep adding unnecessary and false details Zhyboo (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

He still keeps adding the same false information over and over, I saw your warning message to him but he won't listen, just blocked him! And try to protect the lhh pages Zhyboo (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zhyboo: I reported Love & Hip Hop at WP:RFPP and it's been semi-protected for one week. If that person returns to cause trouble after the protection expires, I can make another report with a link to this thread; your messages here would show that the article needs to be protected for much longer. Are there other pages getting attacked? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, love and hip hop Atlanta, love and hip hop new York and love and hip hop Hollywood, the same user you just wanted a fes hours ago, keeps attacking the other ones too Zhyboo (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zhyboo: Okay, I just reported all three. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 14:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bill Murray Birthplace

@Jamoneill96: I'm moving this discussion to Bill Murray's talk page since it's more about that article's content and less about me. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack T. Chick

My edits are not vandalism. I made a legitimate edit, with a side comment you may not have approved of. I fixed up the page without adding my own two cents, but I must say. The way you messaged me was quite appalling.

Perhaps you're not aware of the lunacy and evil that Jack Chick brought unto this world.

LET ME MAKE MYSELF CLEAR: I DID NOT VANDALIZE THE PAGE. I FIXED THE BIRTH/DEATH DATES AND LEFT THE "GOOD RIDDANCE SCUMBAG" COMMENT IN THE EDIT DESCRIPTION.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamkasbar (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Liamkasbar: You made "a legitimate edit," true. I never said different. But your "side comment" is entirely against policy. If you don't want me to send you "appalling" messages, like the one that you apparently didn't read since you seem to think I accused you of vandalism, don't use completely stupid edit summaries like that. And if you need to message me in the future, please do so on Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't make any more negative/stupid comments on my edit summaries, I guess. Btw the message via wikimedia was an accident.