User talk:Justeditingtoday

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I ran into you on an article I was about to revert, and I noticed that you beat me to it! I checked your recent contributions, and I see that you're quite involved with recent changes patrolling and reverting vandalism. You definitely deserve this barnstar -- thank you so much for dedicating your time and energy to doing this! It's a messy job, but it's oh so very important! If you have questions, need advice, or need some help in this area, feel free to message me on my talk page. I have 8 years of recent changes patrolling and reverting vandalism under my belt... I'll be more than happy to help you out with whatever you need! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to give be the barnstar. I will definitely contact you if I have any questions or need advice. Thanks! Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hystorical

Any ~problem with pirates helping themselves? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: There seem to be at least two accounts (Marco Jovani and Michel Sher) adding the exact same text to subtly promote planetpublish. It's strange. Justeditingtoday (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. I've asked for an explanation at their talkpages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Another one just showed up: Michell Debua. Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparative law

Thank you for your reversion of the edits, but I ask for a bit of patience as I flesh these out and source a few more of these pages. 141.225.169.210 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@141.225.169.210: Those reverts were valid. You cannot make blanket claims like "are an efficient method" and that it "permits gathering up-to-date legal authorities from contributors who have local expertise, particularly knowledge of languages and administrative structures that background implementation of particular legal/regulatory norms" without any reference at all. That is original research. The World Encyclopedia of Law doesn't have an article and Wikipedia doesn't have external links within articles. You are using a lot of personal commentary in your edits and that isn't allowed. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and thank you for your patience. These are updates on a number of different fronts, and I'm continuing to source it. Just wanted a tiny bit more time to do so, without having to wage an edit war. Thank you for your understanding and patience. I hear you on "politicking" and tone, and those will be clarified. Not a newby. Just sourcing at moment. Clearly a notable use of wikis, and just need to document a few additional entrants to this field -- as well as evolution on the tech side that's going to permit big inroads in this actually taking off, such as blockchain, etc. 141.225.169.210 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, again. I'm trying to source a few related pages as well at the moment, and link 'em all up, and my current situation doesn't allow me to sandbox, so I appreciate the patience as I add and then clean up a bit, including the refs.141.225.169.210 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Multilayer switching

Can you add these links or cite them because they are more valid and still online then the one on multilayer switching?

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/information-technology/the-multilayer-switch.php

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140401064954/http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/tech/lan-switching/multi-layer-switching-mls/index.html

thanks have a good day/night! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untissuntiss13 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Untissuntiss13: References have to actually reference something. If you just throw them in the reference section then they aren't valid references and the first one is not at all a reliable source because it is simply a student essay. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I will try again thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untissuntiss13 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

hey Justeditingtoday. On that multilayer switching wikipedia page the cisco link is dead shouldn't you or someone else take it off or find a better alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untissuntiss13 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I added an archived version of the link per WP:DEADLINK. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How dare you

Does it make you feel big to call others biased as you edit war to protect a biased source? Why do you deny Freedom Press is anarchist when it's literally the most used word on their website? Keep this up and you'll earn a report. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page of the article. You don't get to assume a source is unreliable simply because you don't like it. There is more to it than that. Freedom Press meets WP:RS. Don't threaten me. Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles

What's your bloody problem? "fairs use rationale" pure bullshit cheap technicality. --PoliticamenteCorrecto (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a "technicality" it is a guidelines WP:FAIRUSE. Please read the guideline and try to be more calm when using my talk page. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In the future, if you think someone is adding false information, bring it to WP:ANI or another venue after they start reverting you repeatedly. Edit warring is not productive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to file a report but there was already one in their name. After more time went by I did add more to the existing WP:ANI report. I didn't think they were adding false information I know they were adding false information: there is no census for a year in the future. This edit summary even admits they "want it a City" and that's why they were altering the numbers with false information. Just like their edits to the hockey article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Holodomor

Why isn't the holodomor racist? Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The reasons for holodomor are argued among scholars (as you can see from the article itself) and one reason is to crush Ukrainian nationalism. Not to eliminate Ukrainians. It was about politics, not race or ethnicity. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oversight Request

Hello,

I have removed your OS Request as it needs to be handled via WP:OS. I have emailed them already about the issue and requested RevDel on your request as we do not want to draw attention to oversightable material in public.

Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I was just trying to figure out why you removed it. I don't have email enabled for this account so I couldn't use that channel. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry it took me a minute to get you the proper explanation, I was trying to make sure I got all the correct notifications done first. Good catch though and thank you for pointing it out! -- Dane ^talk 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on that, the oversight email address is publicly listed at WP:RFO so you don't have to use WPs internal email to contact us. Everything you communicate to oversight, including your email address, is completely confidential. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cloud commerce deletion

Hello, why did you redirect the article and state that it's advertising anything? What was I advertising with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Virto Commerce is listed as an example as well as used as a reference even after someone else removed them. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Justeditingtoday. You're not following the topic of the article. I am sure you can delete all the products from all articles, but that is not what should be done here. The explanation is simple: 1) The only platform that gives you the ecommerce-ready solutions and tools like automatic product recommendation for ecommerce stores is Microsoft Azure. That is why I featured Azure specifically. 2) In the Azure block there were links to all main ".net ecommerce solutions", not only to VirtoCommerce. In fact Virto Commerce doesn't even have the wikipedia page. So why don't you leave all these examples of platforms? It's not a promotion, it's a full list of solutions. 3) If you're concerned on the reference from Virto Commerce blog, just remove it - I agree. The text there was informational, not commercial. Anyway, delete it if you want. 4) Why do you remove practicalecommerce.com? It's a blog, not a company. The content from this influential blog is really valued and important.

Please, take a look at these explanations and consider after the next deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's necessary to mention that nopCommerce and Virto Commerce should be listed only because they're the leaders in .Net ecommerce platforms. Check this in Google - https://screencast.com/t/y9Sy6aN3zZz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting companies or telling people what products are "best" for them. Please read WP:NOTE about notability guidelines. Those leaders you list don't have articles and blogs aren't reliable sources. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent editors of Lansdale, Pennsylvania

Hello, it is my firm belief that the two accounts that recently edited Lansdale, Pennsylvania are the same person, based directly on their edits. Wouldn't this justify an indefinite block for both accounts since that is against the rules of Wikipedia? ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 00:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Milonica: I never said they weren't linked, I simply moved the template from the talk page to the user page as that is where it belongs. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I completely understand why you did that, thank you. I was simply saying though that given the fact that they are probably sock puppets, shouldn't that result in both accounts being blocked indefinitely? Thanks again for moving the template. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They haven't used those accounts abusively yet. They aren't using them to game the system or anything. If you feel that they should be blocked, feel free to file a report at WP:SPI. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio at PAE

Hi. Thanks for reverting that copyvio at Physical Address Extension. You will no doubt have noticed from the page history that it's not the first time.

Just FYI, the actual origin of that text is volume 1, section 3.3.2, of the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual. This person's edits are being discussed at the article talk page - you're invited to chime in there if you like. Jeh (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The technical details are way over my head. I saw a large amount of text being dropped into an article with bizarre spacing and random line breaks which is a tell tale sign of a cut and paste. I chose two lines at random and googled them and came up with the URL I noted. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. It worked. :) Jeh (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jeh: I'm sorry I can't be of more help on the talk page. I wish I were more tech savvy. :( Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at 118.141.127.168's talk page.

Oberlin edits

Hello. What is the problem with my edits on the Oberlin entry? I added better references. Also, the entry already states that "Oberlin was ranked among the 20 friendliest campuses for LGBT students in The Advocate's College Guide for LGBT Students," so I am not sure why Oberlin's ranking on its friendliness for Jews by a Jewish newspaper is less relevant. Talulah James (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Talulah James

Hello again. Regarding my edits on the Columbia page, there is a whole section on various rankings from various different publications on different topics, including "In 2015, Columbia University was ranked the first in the state by average professor salaries.[131] In 2011, the Mines ParisTech : Professional Ranking World Universities ranked Columbia 3rd best university for forming CEOs in the US and 12th worldwide." So why is it "undue" to include how the school was ranked by a Jewish paper? Please apply a uniform standard. Sorry if I am not putting these comments in the right place. Talulah James (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah James

@Talulah James: You were told repeatedly by numerous editors that your edits are WP:UNDUE and your references are either not a reliable source or are WP:PRIMARY yet you continue to ram them into articles. Please use the talk page to gain consensus for such obviously controversial edits. Justeditingtoday (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

/* Talkback */ I added additional references from legitimate news sources, and provided the reason that I don't think my edits are "undue," i.e., it is similar in nature to other edits that have gone unchallenged. One of the other editors has retracted their statement that my sources were problematic, saying that they did not realize that the Oberlin Review was the official college paper. It seems like you are the one that is trying to cause a problem and from your talk page, it seems you have done so in other places as well. Talulah James (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah James

@Talulah James: Obviously you don't think they are undue because you keep edit warring over them. But Wikipedia is about consensus which is why articles have talk pages. Please use them. Attempting to call my intentions into question comes very close to violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. While MShabazz did do a partial self revert their next edit removed more and asked you to use the talk page. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK I have left a message on the Oberlin talk page. It seems to me that those who think my edits are undue should be able to articulate a reason why, and not just that I am outvoted 2 to 1. Talulah James (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Talulah James

@Talulah James: I didn't say you were outvoted. I said you needed consensus and should use the talk page. Per WP:BRD, after something is reverted it should be discussed. Thank you for using the talk page but please put new comments at the bottom of the page otherwise people are unlikely to see them. Talks pages work chronologically. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Splatterhouse high score

I noticed you removed my reference to the high score because it was "promotional". I understand when the record holder himself entered his own score along with subjective promotional claims it was removed for conflict of interest. I though entered a single line just keeping to the fact, merely stating his name, score, date, and reference. Many other games, including lock n chase, q*bert, and tapper mention the current record holder. I'm not saying two wrong make a right but rather looking for clarification. Do you feel all high scores references should be removed from all arcade game pages, or is there something about this title in particular? SnowflakeFury (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowflakeFury: It is a trivial detail and unless there is press about this particular record, it isn't notable enough to include. The record for Donkey Kong, for instance spawned a whole documentary about it. Pac-Man has something about it because the game literally ends at a certain point and it notes the first person to do so. Splatterhouse has neither of these features so how exactly is a high score a notable feature requiring inclusion in the article? Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree donkey kong and pacman are special cases, however that doesnt answer my question. I listed examples of other scores that also fall in a similiar category. What makes the lock n chase score for example any more notable than the splatterhouse score? As far as I can tell, on most arcade games, competition was and to this day is a big part of the game. People often ask "whats the world record" when they start getting interested in a game. The fact so many other games -- not just pacman or donkey kong, but games like the ones I mentioned as well -- get their score listed I always took as an indication that most people agree high scores are not trivial when speaking of arcade games. Do you think lock n chase or q*berts scores should also be removed? Those two didnt have press articles written about them, and they're not the exception but rather the rule here. Thats the part I'm not understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowflakeFury (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowflakeFury: The fact that something is happening in another article doesn't necessarily justify it in all articles (see WP:WHATABOUTX). Why not start a discussion about this with WikiProject Video games? Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Far-left politics seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Far-left politics, you may be blocked from editing.