The statement "I gave y'all my truck payment last week," is more precise than "I gave you my truck payment last week."
to
The statement "I gave y'all my truck payment last week," is more accurate than "I gave you my truck payment last week."
You rolled it back saying
"No, it's a distinction between one person and two or more people. That is precision, not accuracy. In standard English "you" is always accurate regardless of number."
But "y'all" in the sentence I edited is not more precise than "you", it is less precise. The original sentence's "y'all" is more accurate, because the sentence is referring to multiple people, and "y'all" is the term in Southern American English for multiple people, more accurate than is "you", which in that dialect means one person, not multiple people. That is why I changed "precise" to "accurate". DocRuby (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have it wrong. "Y'all" more precisely indicates whom the speaker is addressing compared to "you". "You" in standard English is unclear, thus less precise (it can refer to one person or several people). "Y'all" in Southern English adds that precision by indicating that the speaker is addressing more than one person. Thus, if a Southern English speaker wishes to be precise he/she will select "Y'all" or "you" to achieve a precision to indicate one person or more than one person. "You" in standard English is always accurate, whether speaking to one person or several people (i.e., it is perfectly grammatical in either case). But "you" in standard English does not have the precision that is available in Southern English ("you" vs. "y'all"). Thus, if I speak standard English, I am always accurate but sometimes imprecise. But if I speak Southern English, I can be more precise. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you are making good edits about psychology
Hi, Sundayclose,
=
I first noticed the discussion about editing Southern American English you had with another editor, and have since seen you make constructive edits on articles related to psychological testing. Would you like to join in as another editor (at least) and I slog through a massive revision of the Psychology article? I have been using Wikipedia Library online access and other library access I have to gather a large number of reliable sources for medical articles on topics related to psychology, and I think it would be helpful as I revise the article to have other editors looking on at what I'm doing. Keep up the good work; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for the great work you are doing. My time is very limited so I usually make very small edits. I will do whatever I can, small though that may be. I certainly will try to look at the article from time to time. Thanks for the invitation, and you keep up the superb work as well. All the best, Sundayclose (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: I want to apologize on behalf of the community for the problems created at Talk:Dreamcatcher_(novel)#Infobox. Occasionally someone with persistance and an unwillingness to compromise will camp out on an issue, and will be unusually persistent about something. His language about the change, morover, is very inappropriate. The page has since been reverted to the version you adocated for. We have a number of editors that don't understand how to give constructive criticism.... Please keep up the great work in the community and again many apologies! Sadads (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Of course, only one editor owes me an apology (which I will never get), but you are most kind for expressing your concerns. All the best. Sundayclose (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be uncooperative, but the souce doesn't specifically say that he identifies as a Catholic, just that he is criticizing Catholic University for its lack of Catholic identity. WP:BLPCAT is grossly violated, not just with Catholicism, but with almost every religion. I'm just trying to clean up the category. By the way, apparently the writer infobox doesn't have a religion parameter. If you find a suitable source, I think it's best if you just put a statement at the end of the "Early life" section stating that Blatty is Catholic. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion about including sources in my edits to personality test. I am curious how the the following claim I elaborated upon made it up in the first place, since it does not cite any source whatsoever: "Fundamentally, a personality test 'is expected' to demonstrate reliability and validity." Any direction you could provide would be appreciated. Cgdodd (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for answering on Sundayclose's talk page, but a demonstration of reliability and validity is a standard requirement for any psychological test, and that statement can be found in any standard textbook on psychological testing. You can find citations of such textbooks in my psychology source list in Wikipedia user space, shared to you and to all Wikipedians for updating and improving articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both Cgdodd and WeijiBaikeBianji. As to how the claim got in the article unsourced, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Uncited material gets in. That's why we highly paid editors monitor some articles (just kidding of course). Sundayclose (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Daley Family
Thanks for providing the source. It's a good thing Wikipedia has strict rules about biographies of living persons and specifically about religious identification (see WP:BLPCAT and particularly read the criteria for inclusion in a category). That's why William J. Murray, who became famous for being an atheist, cannot now be identified as an atheist on Wikipedia. Take a good look at Category:American Roman Catholics, or any religious category for that matter. At any given time about 10-30% of people in the category are not sourced as currently identifying as RC. It was close to 50% before a few editors started pruning it. Some were placed in the category simply because they had Italian or Hispanic last names. Sundayclose (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, I get the rules... But I also get that this is an apples/oranges issue: we're not talking about a relatively minor figure in this case -- William Murray while a footnote for a social issue in contemporary America, is by relative comparison nothing like the extremely visible mayor of America's third largest city (where the entire Daley Clan has historically been very publicly identified as part of the Catholic Church -- the Daley-Kennedy connection is an Irish Catholic political bond, and the Daley family -- like the Kennedys -- are widely known for being adynasty of Irish Catholic politicians ). Also, when you read the articles for the Daleys, there is ample evidence in the content of the articles to confirm their religious affiliation, and nothing stating they renounced the church and became atheists.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there was unequivocal evidence of their religious affiliation. I can attend a church, contribute to a church, and even believe in a church. But unless I state that I am Catholic (which I am by the way), don't put it in Wikipedia that I am a Catholic. I know a number of people who do all of those things but do not identify themselves as Catholic. As for major or minor figure, that's beside the point with BLPs. You may not see the need for more than "getting" the rules about BLPs, and I respect your opinion, but your opinion is not the same as everyone's opinion and that's why we have policies. Sundayclose (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing to argue. If a member of the Daley Family renounced their Catholicism, it would be a major local news story and hence make it into the WP articles. John P is most certainly a practicing Catholic -- Nativity over on 37th is my girlfriend's church and I've seen him take communion there. I get the rules, I also get the overwhelming evidence in the body of the article, and nothing contradicts the infobox statement (e.g. renouncing their religion). The Daley family is a major name in Irish Catholic politics, locally and nationally. I've given citations. You can question someone's true faith all you like, but John P is a member of the congregation as well. Google it if you doubt me. I'm going to work now.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No actually you are the one who is trying to provoke an argument. I never questioned anyone's faith. I simply asked for citations in adherence to WP:BLPCAT. This is my last comment on this issue, and I'll ask you to no longer comment on my talk page about it, including responding to this last comment from me. If you have a problem with my edits within policy, take it up at WT:BLP. Thank you for the citations. Sundayclose (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
adolf hitler health
i was trying to explain According Frederick Redlich an psychiatrist was found out that Hitler was also exhibiting symptoms of extreme paranoia(mental disorder) and was aware what he was doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC) it is based on fact can you add the information with good grammar in that adolf hitler health section[reply]
Qualifications to be listed Anglo-Catholic
Hi Sundayclose,
If I am using Talk incorrectly I apologize, this is my first 'Talk'.
I am confused why we need more specific evidence to be listed as an Anglo-Catholic church than anyone else. We have a 'high' service, and we self-identify as Anglo-Catholic. More than 1/2 the listings are tagged as 'self-identifies as Anglo-Catholic', with no references whatsoever. If the criteria to be listed is specific evidence, why aren't all those churches with no links deleted as well? Put another way, why are we being singled out to provide evidence when no one else is held to that same standard?
Thanks for your comment. It's not my intention to hold your church to a different standard, but I can only fight one battle at a time on Wikipedia. Eventually I will remove a lot of the churches listed as unsourced entirely and perhaps others as inadequately sourced, but in the mean time "other stuff exists" is not a good rationale to add to the inadequately sourced material. My initial goal is to prevent more from being added to the article, then later pare down what's already there. I acknowledge this is a matter of opinion because "Catholic tradition" in Anglicanism has a wide variety of meanings. If we include every Anglican parish that acknowledges their Catholic traditions, almost all would go in the list. To me that's not sufficient. What is Catholic tradition? Does it mean weekly private confession? Type of vestments? Public recitation of the rosary before every Mass? Excluding non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Anglican people from communion? No ordination of women? Some Anglican parishes deny that they are Protestant entirely, claiming that the Anglican church was not part of the Protestant Reformation. I don't have a clear answer, but without the use of "Anglo-Catholic" in the church's self-description, it leaves the matter very open to interpretation. I encourage you to get more opinions on the article's talk page because I always respect consensus even if I disagree with it. This should be an issue for the larger community to address, not just you and me. Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, until we meet a specific definition that you agree with of exactly what being Anglo-Catholic is, no one can add any new churches to the list? The definition was already on Wikipedia and cited at the top of the page [2] as "...people, beliefs and practices within Anglicanism which emphasise the Catholic heritage and identity of the various Anglican churches rather than their Reformed heritage." By that definition there is no good reason why we shouldn't be on that list. Being new to this, however, I will defer to your judgement. Just to be clear though, if that is the standard than I am allowed to go through the list and delete every church on it on the basis that does not have any reference, or one that does not have a reference that meets your criteria listed above? Please advise. Eastcoastjim (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand: It is not me or any single editor who decides how to define "Anglo-Catholic"; that is why we are having a discussion. Again, let me encourage you to address these issues on the article's talk page so that the broader Wikipedia community can get involved if they wish. I appreciate your concerns as a newcomer, and I'm definitely not trying to be dictatorial. It might help if you read WP:CON and WP:BRD to learn how the consensus process works. I challenged something in the article as inadequately sourced. That's only the first step if there is disagreement. And, as I've said, I will always respect a clear consensus no matter how much I disagree. And to answer your question, yes you are quite entitled to remove unsourced entries, especially since there is a global "unsourced" tag at the top of the page that is well over one year old. In fact I encourage you to do so; that has been my intent also, I just haven't had the time to cull through the entries. But it's important to emphasize, that is not based on my standard; it is based on Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. If you find an entry that is sourced but with which you disagree, you may also remove that item, although it might become subject to discussion, as is the case between you and me right now. Thanks for your efforts here and for this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits in Lumosity
I don't understand why you keep reverting my edits... Re: "AGAIN, citation needed tags stay up for more than a few days. LEAVE IT and wait for someone to provide a source." What citation? What source? Have you read their website? The company name is Lumos Labs (not Lumosity), they are sponsoring neuroscience research but they are NOT "neuroscience research company". "Brain training company" is an oxymoron. Please explain why you are repeatedly correcting perfectly valid test based on facts from the company website.Wiki-shield (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between a "citation needed" tag and a citation. Citation needed tags are placed to let other editors know that a citation is needed. Such tags are NOT removed within two days after placement, as you did; that is a policy violation because it removes legitimate tag. Wait a reasonable period of time for other editors to find the citation(s) and put them in the article. This is basic Wikipedia policy; if you disagree raise the issue at Template talk:Citation needed rather than arguing with me here. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: This is the first time you and I have crossed paths, and I respect the fact that you may be a relatively new editor who is not familiar with some policies, but I happened to notice your comments in other discussions. Let me strongly suggest that you tone down your personal attacks on other editors (and I'm not referring to myself). More than almost any other policy, that will get you a quick block from editing, as it should. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and ad hominen comments are very destructive. If you don't want to collaborate civilly, then perhaps you should find other venues to spend your time. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that adding request for citation "protects" incorrect information and the text marked with "citation needed" tag cannot be removed until some time passes. What is the reasonable period of time to wait until such text can be removed (obviously, if it is not substantiated by facts)?
Thanks for the warning, the problem is that for the past 3 months I politely explained my every step and reasoning to this "other editor" and spent hours on his talk page and on my talk page responding to his messages despite his repeat attacks and threats. Finally, he decided to put me on the admin noticeboard :( This obviously caused my "gloves off" reaction. Sadly enough, it looks like here in Wikipedia editing world quality and content supported by facts mean less than the number of contributions and status. I started editing Wikipedia after I noticed how much junk is there and I was horrified that millions of people read this and trust this information... Well, now after having my interactions with some of the editors and admins I am no longer surprised. I will tone down my rhetoric and try to learn the rules better, thanks for your advice again. Wiki-shield (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific time period for a cn tag to stay up that is carved in stone; if there is difference of opinion or controversy (which is safe to say is the case with this article), I never remove a cn tag in less than a month, and then only after I raise the issue at the talk page. The only exception is biographies of living people; unsourced critical comments can be removed immediately. As for your personal attacks, there is NEVER a justification for personal attacks under any circumstances. There are other means for resolving content dispute; see WP:DR. I don't usually review another editor's edits unless I see a problem, and I saw it in your edits. You may not intend to do so, but you have presented a confrontational tone in many of your edits. I suggest not editing articles which have been a problem, including Lumosity, Cogmed, and Arrowsmith School, for a while until the dust settles; express your concerns on the articles' talk pages (without the attacks), and if you feel that other editors are making problem edits address that issue at the appropriate noticeboard. Your style so far has not helped your case for keeping your edits, not to mention your reputation as an editor. Please accept my comments as constructive criticism intended in the best in of Wikipedia and in your best interest. Sundayclose (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recommendations, though I may disagree with your suggestion to stay away from the articles listed above - these articles were a mess and I tried my best to reflect the facts and to make sure that these articles are edited according to WP:NPOV principle. Agree, I may have been a bit too positive with Cogmed, though everything there were pure facts. Yet, Cogmed is one of the reasons I started editing: I work in a clinical setting that unfortunately doesn't offer Cogmed, but I evaluated few ADHD teens who took Cogmed training and they had amazing results. Two of them were able to go off meds... Then one of my patients told me that Wikipedia has poorly written, negative article on Cogmed and that's what triggered my actions. Unfortunately, my good faith efforts got lost in Wikipedia politics :(
As for your recommendation re WP:DR, I tried using the form but it gives me the error when I submit it (I already alerted another Steven Zhang about the issue). Have a nice weekend! Wiki-shield (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what form you refer to, but no you haven't tried all of the processes outlined at WP:DR. And the problems are more than just "Wikipedia politics" though that may be part of it. It is possible to be too close to a topic, which is why I suggested that you disengage for a while. But it's always your choice to continue editing the same articles. I suggest reading WP:Edit war if you want to avoid a block from all editing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the articles on Fadi Chehadé, ill find precise sources and add them. I remember seeing a source that identified him as Catholic, but I can't remember where it was...--Quantum Particles (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
On those two videos on ICANN wiki (look below the personal life section), he identifies as Coptic Catholic. Are videos unreliable, even though he identified as Catholic in them?--Quantum Particles (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The video is reliable as far as I'm concerned but here is the problem that applies to both sources you have cited: Chehadé never identifies himself specifically as Catholic. He must identify himself as an adult as Catholic, not his parents when he was a child. Moreover, he doesn't even say his parents are Catholic. He says Coptic Christian. I'm not sure you understand that Coptic Christian can be Catholic or Orthodox. But most importantly, it is his current religious identification that is necessary, not his parents'. If I say that I was raised Catholic, that does not mean that I am currently Catholic. Again, I know you are editing in good faith, but WP:BLP holds editors to a much higher standard than most Wikipedia policies. Sundayclose (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now know what you mean, after reading the BLP policy, and reading the controversies that led to it being so strict. I am sorry if I wasted anyone's time! I remember seeing a source on some news site that he "Identifies as a Coptic Catholic", but I think it was taken down... Oh well. Thanks for explaining it though!--Quantum Particles (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have just undone your reversion of my minor edit on "I like to had. vs I lacked to have had". I'm glad you (un)did so, but your original stated reason for the reversion was wrong: I did not change the content at all, only the formatting. This was one of two places on the talk page where indentation had been made with spaces rather than colons, resulting in preformatted text which on small screens (e.g., my smartphone in the beta Mobile FrontEnd), instead of wrapping, ran off the edge of the screen. See that section as of just before my edits. (Please {{ping}} me to discuss.)--Thnidu (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a nice name, - I had a nice Sunday until I read the templated warnings you left on a friend's page. Louder than Words. Do you understand "This is correct.as tagged, it needs a citation, but not removal." Did you even see it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for complimenting my name. I leave warnings when they are called for, so whoever your friend is deserved the warning. Sorry it bothered you. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me is not that he is my friend but that you seem not to understand that the request to cite a fact is an invitation to find a reference, not to remove the fact, as you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you, so if you can't accept my answer there's no need to reply. CN tags are placed after the fact when another editor previously put unsourced material into an article. CN tags are not to be placed by editors who want to add anything they wish to an article and are too lazy to find a reliable source. Otherwise anyone can add anything to an article simply by placing a CN tag; if I want to add a statement to Moon stating that "the moon is made of cheese", I can do so as long as I place a CN tag after it. If you disagree, don't reply here. Instead read WP:V ("Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed") and WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). Now, I again am sorry if I caused you any distress by placing legitimate warning templates, but if you cannot accept my explanation please don't waste my time and yours by seeking a debate here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfC of interest
Hello! This is to let you know that there is a current Request for Comment on a topic which you previously commented on. The RfC is at Talk:List of European cities by population. The question is, "In articles which rank European cities or countries in order by population or area, should the entire city or country be counted, or only the portion which is in Europe?" Your input there would be appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback
Thank you for giving me those suggestions. This is a learning stretch for me. Are you a Wikipedia Content Expert? I was looking for one when my sentences disappeared. I was having issues trying to add my citation with the citation builder. I want to try to add the sentences again with the appropriate citation. Would you mind looking at it again to see if it is done correctly? I am working on it now, and should be finished in a few minutes. I have also added a note on the talk page for the Piaget article and a help me note on my talk page.M02000297 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see you did the citation correctly. Your comment on Piaget's talk page clarifies things. Since I now know that you will be working on this for a while as far as I'm concerned we can see how it turns out later and then I can make suggestions if necessary. BTW, some editors are quick to revert without checking the talk page (I've been guilty of that at times). As you make edits, you might occasionally mention your talk page comment so editors will know to check it before reverting. Sorry, I'm not a Wikipedia Content Expert. Good luck! Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hi, since you see a problem sufficiently big to block me, can you please point out which of my edits shouldn't be marked minor. My understanding is that when adding to information or changing information in an article it's not marked minor. If it's syntax or turning a list say, into prose, or putting an unbroken article into sections or giving it wiki layout etc, including picking up typos, missing words, fixing or making links, they're all minor edits. Has something changed that means I am required to negotiate every change on the talk page. There isn't much evidence for this in general... Or are you an editor in the habit of biting the unwary, with only two notices. Either way I need a simple guide, thanks. Manytexts (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS if it's about changing worded numbers into digits I understand either is acceptable & I change them occasionally because the former slows my reading pace.
I just checked Tim the Yowie Man & didn't realise that I marked minor when I obviously added material. Sorry about that. Can you show me what else I've miss-marked? thanks Manytexts (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would help a lot if you would go to just a little trouble and read WP:MINOR thoroughly, taking special notice of the statement "If you are in doubt about whether an edit is minor or not, it is always safer not to mark it as minor." An overarching issue should be: if there is even a slight possibility someone might challenge your edit, don't mark it as minor. Adding (or removing) a reference citation, as you did here, is not a minor edit. Note that you also changed content, including a section header, even though it was just a few words. Someone might wish to challenge your selection of a citation; that's not minor. Someone might not agree with the section header you selected. Someone might not think your example in that edit accurately represents the concept. This is just one edit with several items that are not minor. There are others. Let me suggest that you not mark any edit as minor unless you correct spelling, grammar, or formatting. As you gain more experience, you might aquire a better grasp of what is minor, but right now you tend to think edits that change or add content are minor; and such edits are almost never minor. Again, if in doubt, don't mark it as minor. Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you bother to check sources already cited in an article before changing the article? Do you read edit summaries, specifically this one? Let me try to make this as simple as I can: Go to Kath Soucie#Career. Find citation number 2 immediately after the sentence "Soucie was born in Cleveland, Ohio". Click on that citation, which will take you down to the References section. Click the link to the Hischak source in #2. Read. I hope that's simple enough. Sundayclose (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for pointing that out, and it seems like the source that says she was born in Cleveland is legit especially it being in a book, but however a another good source know as imdb.com says she was born in New York City, and she couldn't have been born in both places, so one of the sources has to be false information. Wikiman103talk14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14th Dalai Lama, your deletion of my earlier post as "unreliable"
Hi there Sundayclose, thanks for your attention to this article but I do feel obliged to question your deletion of my post as 'unsourced' or 'unreliably sourced'. The citation I have given for my post is perfectly reliable. The book I cite, of which I have a copy to hand, is published by Rider/Renguin Random House group and co-authored by the well-known Tibetan statesman Gyalo Thondup who is also the elder brother and political mentor of the 14th Dalai Lama and Anne F. Thurston who is editor/co-author of the worldwide bestseller The Private Life of Chairman Mao and author of Enemies of the People and several other specialist reference books on China. How more reliable can get be than that, and on what basis can you presume to delete the entire book details from the bibliography? The post I inserted uses the exact words of the authors but not verbatim. As such, can you please kindly show cause how this citation from such an impeccable source is, in your opinion, unreliable. In case I inappropriately used the brief book citation template, and you don't like that, I have changed it to use the formal detailed book citation template and included a full quotation of the relevant passage, hopefully to dispel any further doubts in your mind, and I trust this does the trick. If I have done something else wrong, that I still don't understand, please let me know what, exactly, and I will try to correct it. Many thanks indeed, MacPraughan (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you read my edit summary, it says "inadequately sourced" because you simply gave an author, date, and page number. If it had remained with that citation, the information could not be verified. But I see that you have now provided a complete citation, so there is no problem. Thanks for your contributions. Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what you wrote in your message to me, your message to which I was responding, was (and I quote)"you made a change to an article, 14th Dalai Lama, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed..."
I also beg to differ, in that the information could have easily been verified by referring to the cited age in the book listed alphabetically in the Bibliography identified by the authors' names, with date and page number where the information was given; at least, it could until you just deleted the book from the Bibliography as 'inadequately sourced'!
Had you looked at the details of the book which I had entered under "Bibliography", instead of just deleting it as unreliable without actually checking, perhaps you would not have been so hasty to condemn my post as 'unreliable' - or 'inadequately sourced' for that matter. You would have seen that Gyalo Thondup was an eyewitness to the event related, which he had described in his book in his own words. What is more reliable and more adequate? Anyway, I am glad that you now concede that the post was both reliably and adequately sourced, so yes, there is no problem. Thank you for your interest.MacPraughan (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I offended you by leaving a standard template that is widely used on Wikipedia I apologize. If you think I somehow violated Wikipedia norms your next step should be to address the matter at WP:ANI. Now, we are finished discussing this issue. Thank you again for your contributions. Please don't message me about this matter again, including a response to this message, and I will do the same after I notify you about my response. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing my own credits
Seeing as how people rely on Wikipedia for its perceived accuracy, I've taken it upon myself to correct inaccuracies in my own Wikipedia page since, arguably, I'd know my own credits better than anyone. For example, no matter how much someone insists I had an uncredited role in "Wreck-It Ralph," the fact remains I never received a paycheck from that film because I wasn't in it. If I can't fix such blatant errors, who can? Doesn't accuracy trump perceived conflict of interest? I'm not adding anthing new, I'm removing things that never were.Itsamike (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)--Mike Pollock, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pollock[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I see your point. Maybe I jumped the gun in leaving you the COI template; if so I apologize. As long as you don't add anything unsourced or try to slant the article toward an unjustified point of view, then you're not violating policy, including the one about COI. COI is a pet peeve of mine. A few years ago Amy Fisher tried making massive and unsubstantiated changes to her article. That doesn't appear to be your agenda. But it doesn't just happen with celebrities. There's a lot of COI added to Wikipedia by people with an interest in promoting their business or products. Anyway, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. BTW, I left yet another warning for the latest culprit on your article, anon 73.29.184.78. A problem with anon IPs, unlike registered users, is that their warnings become "stale" so administrators are hesitant to block them. If this one continues let me know and I'll take it to WP:ANI to get a block if I can. By the way, you may already know about the WP:3RR rule; don't revert on the same article more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're correcting an error. That could get you a block, but message me and I'll help out if I can. Sundayclose (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. My main objective is to fix a couple of persistent mis-credits that follow me all over the Internet. They end up propagating to the IMDb and various series-related Wikis with everyone crediting Wikipedia as a source. Beyond that I'm more than happy to let Wikipedia users have their way with the page (within reason of course, like the Anon IP you mentioned). And I hadn't known about WP:3RR, but I do now and I'll use appropriate restraint in the future. Thanks. Itsamike (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
My page is apparently being vandalized. "Charizard X" isn't a thing. The vandal is goofing on "Sonic X" in the previous row. Note the parallel character name structure. Thanks. Itsamike (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Same goes for "Charizard Boom." Not a thing. Itsamike (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, While in retrospect I can agree with it not being a minor edit, but the editorial I took out was and is just that. It is someone's opinion that really has nothing to do with the surrounding text. "I know how John Cena feuds tend to work. He loses one match, then wins the next two or three. Look at Rusev and Bray Wyatt as examples. These feuds don't really help talent." How much more opinion do you get? Why not just write John Cena indiscriminately buries talent? It has absolutely no value in a biographical encyclopedia entry ThaRock1976 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation is an opinion. Many quotations on Wikipedia are opinions. But they are not necessarily an opinion of a Wikipedia editor. And it isn't necessarily my opinion. I didn't restore the quotation because I have some vested interest in portraying Cena one way or the other; I really don't have an opinion about him. I could argue that your desire to remove the quotation is POV, but I'm not. I'm simply stating that the quotation is relevant to the article. If an editor had simply inserted an unsourced comment about Cena's feuds, that would be unsourced POV. But it is a sourced quotation, and it does in fact relate to the text of the article. The article discusses numerous feuds. This is a content dispute. There are no Wikipedia policies involved. Get consensus on the article's talk page before removing the quotation again. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wikilinked List of minor planets/3001–4000, which only names the asteroid; it does not explain the origin of the name. That's why I reverted. But I clicked the link provided above and discovered that almost the entire article is unsourced. So then I clicked 3768 Monroe, only to discover that it redirects to List of minor planets/3001–4000. We clearly have a problem with WP:CIRCULAR and WP:V. But I restored your edit. I hope you will change the wikilink to the better article that mentions her name. I don't doubt your good faith, but frankly I was appalled at such poor sourcing. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited Killers album's article and checked the revisions. Your last revision caught my attention. The person was right an you were wrong for undoing his edit. It is indeed stated Live at the Marquee, London 4 July 1980 on the releases of the single. Proofs that it's true – 1, 2 and 3 (image called Booklet). I'm going to undo your edit and please try to do some research before undoing edits.
I see you didn't even bother to look at sources which are there for a long time. It is clearly STATED in those sources where all those live tracks were recorded. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you didn't even bother to read my reply above or click the links to read policy. So until you do, here's another message: Stay off of my talk page, including a reply to this message. And if you have thoughts of not honoring that request, here's another policy: WP:Harassment#User space harassment; one more message here and you'll be blocked from editing. If you have any doubt about who is responsible for appropriate citations, read WP:BURDEN. If you have issues with the article in question, address them on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary source
Dr. Carrier characterizes the sources in the proposal as showing that the methodology is "proven to be logically invalid across the board". See page 21 of "On the Historicity of Jesus".VictoriaGraysonTalk02:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AIV report
The user has over 13,000 edits since late 2011, and a clean block log. That alone should tell you AIV is not the right place, unless the account has been compromised — MusikAnimaltalk21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so after I rack up 13,000 edits (without a single edit summary or attempt to discuss removal of appropriate content), and after dozens of warnings from numerous editors, I can then remove anything from any article that I wish with impunity. Sorry, that's bull. Don't get me wrong; I think the vast majority of admins do an admirable job with a thankless job, but sometimes a few go out of their way to protect vandals. No need to respond here at this time, but please keep any eye on MisterMorton's edits and see if anything changes. When it doesn't, I'll accept your acknowledgement that you made an error in judgment (albeit in good faith, still an error in judgment). Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MusikAnimal that the case is too complicated to have been appropriate for AIV. That doesn't mean he can get away scot-free – it means it requires more careful review in a more appropriate venue. AIV is for obvious cases that can be quickly handled. I considered this one more carefully than I would for a typical vandal. — Capt'nEarwigarr! / talk18:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to Jerry Lee Lewis
Please don't make me bring up basic policies of verifiability in response to this. There's been enough genre warring at that article. If there ever was a consensus at this article, then it should have been based in sources that would support those genre. Please cite them instead of restoring more unsourced material to an article littered with it. Dan56 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pot calling the kettle black. No one has genre warred any more than you have: [1], [2]. And from the looks of your block log you seem to have a habit of edit warring in general. Discussion of the issue of genres is perfectly OK. But I don't care to waste any more of my time on your hypocrisy of pointing out policies to others that you yourself have violated in the same article and accusing others of the very same behavior that you have displayed. If you have other issues with Jerry Lee Lewis take it up on the article's talk page. Don't message me here again. Sundayclose (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled1
Hi sunday! THank you for taking the time to review my edits. The 10 key issue areas are listed in the about section of the one billion acts of peace campaign, I don't understand how they aren't in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroeththo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, new messages go at the bottom of a talk page, not under the first section header. Secondly, you took quite a few liberties in wording the 10 issues, so much so that I question their accuracy. Thirdly, there are two citations to the information about the Nobel Prize nomination: one has almost no identifying information; the other one doesn't confirm what you wrote. Fourthly, don't put citations at the end of headings; put them at the end of a sentence or at the end of a section. Before you edit Wikipedia any more, please thoroughly read: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE.
Hi again, can I ask what the issues were with that last edit? The sources all included something about the 1baop campaign. You asked for more info on the Nobel Peace Prize nomination and I found a copy of the nomination letter by Desmond Tutu - this is about as accurate of a source as a person can get isn't it? You said that the ten issues areas didn't match the source, so I found multiple sources that the issues areas all match up with. Now if you'd like a larger variety of sources like books, then say so, maybe remove the questionable sources, but I don't think that these edits are justified by removing encyclopedic wording that there are lots of sources for. Everything you asked for in the first post was done by the second post. I thank you for your edits and I don't like arguing, I'm confused as to how doing what you asked for the first time results in even more edits.
Hello Sundayclose,
You reverted my recent additions to Michael Marshall (skeptic), Peter Popoff and Good Thinking Society because they were 'poorly written' in your view. I'm not a native English speaker as you can see on my profile, so it's quite possible I'll make mistakes on occasion. Reverting my entire edits (including other unrelated previous edits) seems a bit unwarranted though, but ok. I asked two of my native English speaking friends for advice, and they were able to spot two grammatical errors that I've now corrected. I hope this will satisfy you, and if not, please (indicate how you would) rephrase it yourself, and if you like please explain why, so I can learn from it. Thanks in advance! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Cohen
Hello Sundayclose,
I am unsure how I am supposed to give references to my additions. I state, correctly, that the band the Sisters of Mercy is based on a song of the same name. I also point out the names of their Albums that are lyrics from leonrd cohen songs, this is something that anyoan check put hasn't necessarily been published in an article so where would the references come from?
regards mycocktaildress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycocktaildress (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Assassination of Abraham Lincoln". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 October 2015.
The request for formal mediation concerning Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
"Hard of hearing" is an adjective, not a noun. Compare "deaf" and "deafness." "Hardness of hearing" is correct. You wouldn't say "I am afflicted with 'hard of hearing.'" 73.172.99.131 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of SCI Camp Hill article
Hello Sundayclose:
Why the reversion to this article? It adds history and background for the facility and cannot be considered vandalism. The citations and references are pending, as most of the background events predate collection on the web. (Local newspaper is not archived to the 1940s-1990s.)
If this is the error of an inexperienced contributor, my apologies, but the contribution is factual based on personal acquaintance with the Harrisburg, PA, region.
No apology needed. We all have been inexperienced at some time. I appreciate your good faith efforts, but a core policy on Wikipedia is that all information should be verifiable with reliable source. Information based on personal knowledge that cannot be verified with a reliable, secondary source is not allowed. It's not acceptable for citations to be "pending" because often pending citations never get added. Once you are able to add the citations I think you can make some important improvements to the article. For help on how to do all of this, click the blue links in this message. Thanks for adding to the project. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Patricia (disambiguation page)
Can you please stop reverting my edits on Hurricane Patricia (disambiguation), many reliable sources are already given in the main article so there is no need to cite the same sources again. Please read WP:DABREF Disambiguation pages usually do not need sources, most disambiguation pages here on Wikipedia don't need to repeat the sources that are already listed in the more detailed article. And if you check on many disambiguation pages for hurricane names you will find the same unsourced material, but that does not mean that it is not valid, or that it has not been previously sourced on each main article.
You are also falsely stating that I am publishing unsourced material, and that is clearly not true. 181.209.246.164 (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Reply
Hello Sundayclose,
I just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your comments/questions about some of my edits on the Bixby Letter page. Since there's been a delay from the time you made your post until I was able to write a reply on the Talk page; I thought I should contact you on your Talk page to make you aware of it.
Sincerely,
--Libertybison (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Catholic church.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello Sundayclose,
I just wanted to remind you that I've replied to the post you made on the Bixby Letter Talk page about one of my edits to the article (concerning which military unit son George Bixby belonged to). Since there was a long delay between your post and when I was able to reply, I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
Sincerely,
Libertybison (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All sources rely solely on Lentulus, which has dubious reliability. Don't add the information without first discussing on talk page and getting consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lentulus'description is of especial importance, whether it is authenthical or not, because it has been the introduction for most artists, a citation from a better source should fit. The letters of Pilate and John of Damascus are generally considered authentical, or you dispute this? Should I question the last two on talk page as well? --IllusIon (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said, take your case to the article's talk page instead of here. Lentulus has doubtful reliability, and you need consensus on the talk page to include in the article. By the way "The name", I hope you realize that changing your user name every few months does not get rid of your problematic edit history, or warnings. The best way to deal with those problems is to learn from your mistakes, which you seem to be having trouble doing, not changing your user name. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit in The Wizard of Oz
Sundayclose, as of what you think I'm not vandalizing anything in the article. In the edit I made I add "|editor= Mark A. McNally & Susan Odjakjian" When I first made this edit, I've used IMDb's page as the source & the names were listed under "Series Editorial Department" but I didn't list the source. The end credits of the show had the same names & were listed above "Assistant Editor - Trudy Alexander" which occurs at the 0:22 mark. This is my second edit, as seen here. I know IMDb is an unreliable source for any article on Wikipedia I understand that, but I just couldn't help myself. I just wanted to add more information in the article. I apologize for any inconvenience I brought up to you.
There are multiple problems with your edits. First and foremost, "I just couldn't help myself" is an absurd excuse for policy violation. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. That will get you a block if you continue. The YouTube link is a copyright violation and not a reliable source. See WP:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. And finally, a "format editor" is not the same as Editor of the entire production. This is not the first time you've added incorrect information to articles. Please stop this nonsense. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wake Forest Dining Facilities
I deleted much of the information in the Dining Facilities section because I believe it is non-encyclopedic; you reverted with the edit summary "not encyclopedic; quite relevant" (which confuses me since we both seem to agree the content is non-encyclopedic). To the point: a lot of the information seems non-noteworthy and trivial (e.g. "The Magnolia Room ... offers a "Premium Dinner" with two seatings," ""Shorty's Restaurant & Bar ... open for lunch, dinner and late night," "Starbucks ... opened in 2008," "Subway ... open 24 hours." This sort of information would perhaps be of interest to a student or visitor to the campus, but most likely not to a general reader. Would you please clarify why you believe this sort of information belongs in the article? Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion in my edit summary. I intended to say "not unencyclopedic". I consider the the dining facilities, icluding type of food offered, notable enough to include in the article. It is a component of student life, which is as important as athletics. That subsection comprises a very small portion of the entire article. If you want to remove "open 24 hours" or specific location on the campus, that's OK with me to remove. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I still feel most of the information is non-encyclopedic, but not strongly enough to raise the issue on the article's Talk page and solicit input from other editors. I've lightly pruned some of the content. Contributor321 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paul McCartney
I wanted to add but noticed it was locked, with good reason I'm sure.
An omission, I believe, is the noteworthy addition to Sir Paul's legacy is the creation/co-founder of Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts. A mention and link to the wiki page I would think is appropriate.
Cheers,
Jim Jimdunaway (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I can understand leaving the images, but Wikipedia should not be giving Blausen advertising by linking to his website any more than anyone else. Free licensing does not entitle someone to free advertising. If someone want to find the source they can click on the image. No need for it in the article any more than the source for any other image. Sundayclose (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not linking to their website. We are simply referencing their website similar to how we reference other commercial sources and we are not mentioning their name. I do not see an issue with mentioning that their is a further animation in the ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. It is rare to see a citation with an image caption. In fact, I don't ever recall seeing one. It's nothing against Blausen, it's just a matter of principle. As I said, readers typically click on an image to find its source. If a link to the website goes anywhere in the article, it should be under "External links". Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the intrusion, but can I inquire as to the location of the content being discussed? I take it from what has been said already that we are talking about a reference in a caption and not an external link inside the caption itself (which would without question be against policy)? I will say that, while it is quite rare, references do occur within captions from time to time, and I am unaware of any policy which excludes them. In fact, if the caption includes information that needs to be sourced and this is not satisfied in the main body of the article's text, it would arguably be required--though it's also worth noting that captions are generally meant to reiterate or refine information found in the article's prose, not introduce entirely new information, except to the extent that the captions text is wholly dependent on the image in order to make any kind of sense. Anyway, if the ref is more concerned with directing towards the source of an image than supporting a claim in the caption, then I'd likely come down on the side of Sundayclose's interpretation that this function is meant to be served by the filepage's details. But it's hard to say without having seen the full context. Snowlet's rap23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No intrustion; I welcome comments. No, the caption does not have unsourced information. We are discussing many articles in which BruceBlaus (talk·contribs) added images and a link to his website that typically says "See a full animation of this medical topic" in which he inserted an external link to his website, essentially making the link spam. DocJames rightfully points out that the images are high quality and under open license. I'll ask DocJames to correct me if necessary because I don't want to misrepresent what he says, but I believe he converted the external link to a citation (see example). My point is that the citation is unusual and not necessary because it is not needed for unsourced information. Readers can follow the usual process for finding the source by clicking the image. So it's not an inline external link, but it is an unnecessary citation to the website, which still makes it spam in my opinion. I appreciate BruceBlaus' contributions, but that does not entitle him to spam his website. And as I said, if the website is linked at all in the article it should be under "External links". Sundayclose (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the distinction now, and I'm inclined to agree. Any debatable ambiguity here is, in my opinion, eliminated by the inclusion of the "video in reference" comment, which essentially translates this reference into an external link for content outside the project placed within the body of the article text--which is, of course, prohibited by policy. I wonder if Mr. Blaus' intent is necessarily promotional here though; taking a (very) cursory look at his contribs, it seems that he is quite determined to add these links to all uses of his donated material, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that this at least partially motivated by a desire to share the animated versions of this content instead of, or in addition to, promotional intent. I can't help but think that the animations would be a wonderful asset to our readers in many instances, so I'd hope most editors are moving the links to external references sections rather than eliminating them altogether, but I rather suspect that is not happening in the vast majority of cases. Best of all would be if Mr. Blaus could donate some of these animations as video files. As introductory materials on physiology go, they seem to be fairly high quality. I wonder if anyone has ever approached him with regard to this possibility. Snowlet's rap00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't know Blaus' intentions, although he received warnings about spam. But regardless of his intentions, spam is spam and shouldn't be permitted. Obviously it is Blaus' decision as to how much freely licensed content he wishes to provide. I don't blame him for not giving animations free to Wikipedia when the company's income is from licensing them. Even without the citations to the website, however, including the still images on Wikipedia does promote the website, just not as blatantly and not against policy. Sundayclose (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes me wonder if he might not be amenable to donating some of his animations for the same purpose. Do you recall what the policy is for watermarks in video content used within articles? Snowlet's rap01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should be in the text of the main body of the article (captions included), but linking the site in the external links section--that is, post reflist--could be of benefit to our readers, especially if we link directly to the animation. Snowlet's rap07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain in my edit summary, but if you need more detail here it is. One point to understand: I am not challenging whether these individuals have claimed to be the Messiah. The issue is notability. There are literally thousands of people throughout history who have claimed to be the Messiah. Wikipedia can't include all of them and must draw the line on notability. Read WP:WTAF. Many non-notable claimants have been added and removed based on notability. The established procedure on this article is to either write well sourced articles on these two people, or get consensus on the talk page to include them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sources for Port Arthur, Texas
What do you mean by unsourced content? I got the information from the Wikipedia page for Mike Rabon, as well as the reference information from Allmusic which is mentioned on that page.
I would appreciate it if you would not arbitrarily reverse my edits. So far, you have done so twice. The 1st time I let it go as I had not provided an adequate source for "armada of ants;" I concurred that the source cited did not specify ants, rather ants were used as an example. This time, you have reversed "mob of cattle;" the source is more than adequate as it specifically says "cattle" or "sheep" when on a drive. If you cannot find the definition at my source, look lower on the page as British English. Actually, "mob of cattle" is most commonly used in Australia. I gave a similar explanation on the talk page.
Dstern1 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Church
Sundayclose. In your edit summary, you incorrectly state: that Sui Iuris churches "should never have been removed, especially without discussion. It explains a lot in a few words."
As the author of that statement, it is my right to remove that statement. I own the copyright on that statement, and never relinquished that copyright, and can choose to remove my own contributions. Under the Creative Commons license, under which I licensed the sentence, you can choose to restore it if you wish. That is simply how Wikipedia works. It is sufficient to state that you disagree with the removal of a clause when you restore it; to declare that anybody must do anything is inappropriate and frustrating to other editors.
This is a discussion about editing behavior. I do not care strongly about the statement regarding sui iuris churches. I removed my own contribution because I did not think it particularly valuable. If you disagree, I am flattered. --Zfish118⋉talk03:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zfish, I am assuming good faith here on your part, but I'm sorry you don't own the copyright to anything that you put on Wikipedia. See the third item in WP:5P. Once you put it in Wikipedia, it is freely licensed. If everyone who adds words to Wikipedia has a copyright on those words and can add or remove them without concern for discussion or consensus, Wikipedia would be in massive chaos. Every time you make an edit on Wikipedia, the following words are in the edit window: "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." In fact, Zfish, no one owns the copyright to the words "sui iuris". Two words cannot be copyrighted. A brand name, such as "Toyota Camry" can have a trademark, but the use of a few words in a text can never be copyrighted. If you think you have the copyright to those words please provide the copyright documents for all of us to see. As for "editing behavior", I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, but everything on Wikipedia is subject to discussion, especially when it is challenged. The reason I said "especially without discussion" is because the "sui iuris" item had previously been removed and restored before you removed it again. According to WP:BRD, after it was restored there should have been discussion before it was removed again. I assume in good faith that you were not aware of some of these details. But please don't accuse me of violating your copyright or other inappropriate "editing behavior". Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose; I am not accusing you of violating my copyright. You may freely use my contributions under the terms of the Creative Commons license, as I explicitly stated in my original post. However, I am free to remove my own contributions without asking permission, and you are free to restore them if you feel otherwise. I am indeed flattered that you thought my contribution was worth keeping. After you restored it, I never removed it. If someone else did, I was not aware.
I am upset by your edit summary stating that it should "never" have been removed. Writing a high quality template requires give and take. If every edit is going to attract recriminations and accusations of violating some obscure interpretation of consensus, nothing will get done. There is no consensus that the template MUST mention sui iuris churches. The template is a few weeks old, and no body happened to object to including mention of the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches. I later reconsidered my own contribution, thinking it was too complex a topic for the infobox, and removed my own contribution. You happened to object to its removal and restored it, as that was your prerogative.
All I ask is that you not use accusatory language in talk page summaries. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and know the policies. I am reaching out to try to avoid future frustrating encounters. --Zfish118⋉talk17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If copyright wasn't an important issue in your statements above, why did you write "I own the copyright on that statement, and never relinquished that copyright"? And no, with all due respect, you are not always free to remove your own contributions once that removal has been restored. Again, read WP:BRD. You can remove it because anyone can make any edit, but you should have discussed it since it was previously removed and restored. Otherwise there can be an endless adding and removing. That's the whole point of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You said, "After you restored it, I never removed it. If someone else did, I was not aware": Read my comments above; I acknowledged that you may not have been aware, but that doesn't mean that I cannot restore it. And I never said there is "consensus that the template MUST mention sui iuris churches"; I said that once it was removed and restored there should be discussion before restoring it again. I never made "recriminations and accusations of violating some obscure interpretation of consensus." WP:BRD is not "obscure"; it's something that every editor with a modicum of experience is aware of. If you weren't, that's fine, but don't accuse me of inappropriate "editing behavior" simply because I am aware of it and pointed it out. I suggest at this point we both move on from this matter so as not to inflame something that is over and done with. I restored sui iuris after it was previously added, removed, readded, and again removed, and you are free to discuss that on the article talk page if you want it removed again. I assume you have done everything in good faith. If you can't assume that about me, I don't plan to continue this argument. We both have more important things both on Wikipedia and in real life than squabbling over this. Thanks for your many contributions to the article and for all the good faith negotiating over the last few weeks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Sundayclose as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk04:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following sections that I deleted from "Do You Want to Know a Secret" are really unnecessary and pointless. The "Language =" section of the blue "song" infobox is not needed because it's obvious that this song is in English and you don't typically see "Language =" in infoboxes of other songs in English that is in the English-language Wikipedia. The "Misc =" section in the yellow "single" infobox is not needed either because the song infobox already has it showing the music sample in it. The "prev_no"/"next_no" sections of the blue infobox, not necessary because the track list of the "Please Please Me" album is already there. The other sections, such as the "Writer =", "Genre =", "Recorded =", "Length =", and "Producer =" sections, I deleted them from the yellow infobox because they are already in the blue infobox, and it's about the same song with the same recording, and I've seen articles other Beatles songs (like "Yesterday (Beatles song)") that don't mention these sections on the yellow infobox because they're already mentioned on the blue infobox, so I think this particular article shouldn't be any different in terms of infobox sections.
All the best, Meluvswiki (talk). 3:27 PM, 23 December 2015.
(New messages always go at the bottom of a talk page, not the top.) Thanks for your message. First, "it's the same song" is not correct. It may have been unintentional, but you removed several parameters for the B-side (Thank You Girl): Recorded, Genre, Length, Writer, Producer. Look at the diffs for your edit and you will see that those parameters do not apply to Do You Want to Know a Secret. As for the other removals you made, to put things simply, infobox parameters generally stay even if they are empty. It does no harm to leave them in. But even more importantly, it is not your decision as to what should stay and what should go in the infobox. Any of us is subject to error in removing a parameter that might be filled in later. Your edit is a perfect example. You removed parameters for Thank You Girl (unintentionally I assume) thinking that you were removing for Do You Want to Know a Secret. The bottom line: it does no harm to leave empty paramters. Please stop. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2001:5B0:2A70:1790:C97E:F84B:130C:4BA2 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)To Sundayclose: I know the alternate version to the Beatles song "Magical Mystery Tour" exists, because I have it on my digital collection. May be sourced from one of their rare bootleg albums. As such, it doesn't mean such a version doesn't exist. Please restore my edit for full historic accuracy, or remain incomplete as far as that particular data is concerned. Thank you. Doug.[reply]
Not my fault
I'm not completely familiar with the Wikipedia formatting rules. Notice I said COMPLETELY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2fan01 (talk • contribs)
(Please comment on users' talk pages rather than user pages). I don't expect you or anyone to be completely familiar with formatting. What I do expect is for you to either preview your edits or at least look at them after you make them and revert them if they make a mess rather than just moving on. That is your fault. But thanks for replying and I hope you will improve. Sundayclose (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That response makes no sense whatsoever. But it's time for me to move on rather than wasting more time on this. So far I've considered your problem edits mostly an annoyance. If they continue, however, I will start viewing them as either vandalism or incompetence. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they be viewed as vandalism if I'm trying to add information to the article? u2fan01 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2015 (CST)
Vandalism includes being repeatedly destructive to Wikipedia when you have been repeatedly told to stop. Or if you prefer that your actions should be interpreted as incompetence, be aware that competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Now, I don't care to waste more of my time on you. You've been adequately warned. Don't message me again. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2001:5B0:2A70:1790:C97E:F84B:130C:4BA2 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)To Sundayclose: I know the alternate version to the Beatles song "Magical Mystery Tour" exists, because I have it on my digital collection. May be sourced from one of their rare bootleg albums. As such, it doesn't mean such a version doesn't exist. Please restore my edit for full historic accuracy, or remain incomplete as far as that particular data is concerned. Thank you. Doug.[reply]
Re: Deletion of addition to List of Anglo-Catholic Churches
Hi, thanks for your note on my Talk page. My source for describing St Chad, Stafford as self-described AC is their own website, where under Services they say they are of an A-C type. This is consistent with some ref to incumbents as "Father" and the Gallery and Video on the website. Many (most?) other entries on the List were unsourced so I thought why bother, when the church website could be consulted. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statements I added in in heading of Garage rock are fully sourced
The statements I added in the heading are fully sourced in the article and need to be stated. We have a whole new well-researched section in the article that carefully explains the psychedelic connection with certain garage rock acts, Psychedelic garage rock in the 1960s. The statement about garage's influence on punk is well-sourced in the article and has been there a long time Emergence of punk aesthetic and movement.,[1][2][3] Mick Jones, Charlie Harper, Poly Styrene, Vic Godard, Bryan James, and Captain Sensible are quoted attesting to garage influences in Robb's book. The punk rock article makes clear in the heading that punk had roots in garage and protopunk, and they etymology section there is very comprehensive. To deny that garage influenced later punk is simply not factual. So, please trust that I know what I'm talking about here. I assumed that there would be no objection to my additions, because they are so obvious, based on what has been sourced and established. So, we need to put them back. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^M. Gray, The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town, Hal Leonard, 2004, Ch. 1, pp. 26–29. Gray discusses influence of garage rock and Nuggets compilation on Mick Jones; he mentions on page 27 that his mother, who was living overseas (in Detroit) in the early 1970s, would send him copies of Creem magazine – he would read articles by Lester Bangs using word "punk rock." Gray discusses how the perception of punk shifted away from its previous 60s and early 70s connotations following the rise of the Sex Pistols and the whole "year zero" outlook.
^Robb, John. Punk Rock: An Oral Biography. PM Press. Oakland, California. 2012, pp. 34, 66, 76, 106, 132, 133, 187, 215. Oral accounts by Mick Jones, Charlie Harper, Poly Styrene, Vic Godard, Bryan James, and Captain Sensible that discuss the influence of garage rock (American bands such as the Seeds and the Shadows of Knight, as well as British bands such as the Troggs, and the Nuggets compilation) on musicians in the early London punk scene; Page 76: Mick Jones refers to bands on Nuggets as "early punk".
^Aaron, Peter. If You Like the Ramones. Backbeat Books (an imprint of Hal Leonard Corporation). Milwaukee, WI. 2013. Page 53 mentions the participation of three of the original members of Ramones in 1960s garage bands; page 46 mentions that Ramones did cover of the Troggs' "I Can't Help Myself" on the album, Acid Eaters.
No problem--you always mean well. Would it be OK if I restore the one about garage's influence on later punk--it too is well-sourced and I didn't think there would be any objection to its presence? Only if it is OK with you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that I removed that is sourced, feel free to restore. You certainly are much more familiar with the article and the topic than I am. Thanks for asking. Sundayclose (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm responding in the correct place. If not, my apologies. I also apologize for any content I may have removed, as it was accidental and inadvertant. I have no idea which content or template you are referring to, but again, I apologize.
I'm responding because you accused me of 'lying' in my source citations. You must know that a lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts. If I misrepresented my source incorrectly, it was not by intent, therefore not a lie, but a mistake. I was not representing that IMDb listed those films or shows as containing "magic negroes", but cited them as sources for film release years and cast listings.
I don't understand why IMDb would not be a reliable source. Perhaps you or a reader can advise me as to more appropriate ways to source such listings.
Thank you.
IndigoP (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't cite something if it does not confirm what you add to Wikipedia. The source must specifically identify the character as Magical Negro. As for reliability of IMDb, did you bother to read WP:IMDB/RS? Sorry, but you need to find sources yourself. Just be sure they conform to WP:RS. If you have any doubt, ask on the article's talk page and wait for responses. The article has a long history of people adding what they think is Magical Negro. But most of those could not be reliably sourced. Sundayclose (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
I've been noticing all of your many fine contributions to Wikipedia, and I just wanted you to let know how much I appreciate them and how grateful I am. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your good faith, but can you point out the policy or guideline to that effect? And which are the main and superior categories in this case? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fundamental characteristic of the categorisation system that it is heirarchical, so, for example, under the top category "Music" you will find "music in Tonga", "Jazz", and under that "Jazz in Munich" etc. I was surprised not to find "The Beatles" as a subcategory of "Musical groups from Liverpool". That is clearly because the article itself has been put where the category should be.Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not to assume bad faith, but help me understand something. You removed the superior category "Musical groups from Liverpool" from the article, but you didn't put the category "The Beatles" in "Musical groups from Liverpool" where it should be. Help me understand how that makes sense. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is that "the Beatles" is the main article in [[:Category:The Beatles]. It's that category that should appear in the superior categories, rather than the article itself. That way people who are looking, for example, for the films, or the concert tours, would be alerted to the fact that there are separate articles about those things, which they might not expect. There is no real rule about this stuff, and I certainly don't plan to fight about it. The idea is to try and think what is the most helpful way of leading people to what they are looking for, bearing in mind that, by definition, the readers will know less about the subject than the people who write the articles. I have put Category:The Beatles into Category:Musical groups from Liverpool, and I was just wondering what other categories it should be in, as I'm not familiar with them. But perhaps you could do a better job of that than I could. Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who's Catholic calls their fellow co-religionists Roman Catholics. People incorrectly refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics. So I guess you're right "Catholics are sometimes referred to as Roman Catholic." But it's a mistake. I know because I happen to be Catholic not Roman Catholic.
NapoleonX (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what planet you're from, but I've been a Roman Catholic for 65 years. And my fellow Roman Catholic have frequently referred to Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics. The language we use is not a "mistake". Don't assume your opinion is fact. Get your facts straight, or find a reliable source to back up your claims before you tell 1.25 billion people that they are wrong on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie
I wasn't sure why the lead read "eastern" United States. That seems kind of wordy, and redundant. In the article it is clearly explained she grew up in several states on the East Coast. EHC0413 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. The most important reason I messaged you is to remind you to leave an edit summary, especially when you remove information. Otherwise, other editors have no idea why you removed content; you didn't vandalize, but vandals often remove content without explanation, and you don't want to be confused with a vandal. A less important point: the lead of an article is a summary of the entire article. Some redundancy is expected. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English Wiki
Noone said the English Wikipedia is written in American English by default, nor that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia. It's written in all varieties of English. However, Wikipedia is an American website and non-English international topics are open to differences of opinions and can be American English. Meesalikeu (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"non-English international topics are open to differences of opinions and can be American English": AGAIN, read WP:ENGVAR: "within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently". The JPI article has been written in British English consistently since its creation, and changing it to American English, as you did here, is inappropriate. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox parameter removals
Sundayclose, I'm sorry I keep constantly removing empty infobox parameters. I won't do that anymore from now on. I now learned my lesson. Thank you. Meluvswiki (talk) 3:03 PM, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Disney World Incidents
Hi Sundayclose. You recently left me a message that I was removing information from the Incidents at Disney World articles. I made two edits to that article, the first changing the word 'butt' to 'rear end' because I didn't think butt sounded to encyclopedic. The second edit was fixing what I saw as a typo. I certainly don't want to remove information from Wikipedia when it's not right to do so, please let me know if you think those edits were inappropriate.
Thanks for your message. If you had changed "butt" to "buttocks", that would be making it more encyclopedic, although entirely unnecessary because almost every English speaker knows the meaning of "butt". But Wikipedia does not change words because someone might consider the words offensive, and changing "butt" to the euphemism "rear end" is a form of censorship. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be ok if I changed it to buttocks? I don't want to re-edit the article with out talking it out. I didn't see it as offensive, just too casual for an encyclopedia. I was split between buttocks and rear end before I edited, so I understand what you're saying. I just think that butt is too colloquial for an article on this website.
AnandaBliss (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your message to me about my "unsourced" Carrie edits
You sent me the following message: " Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Carrie (novel). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)"
But the thing is, I did include sources. The edit was the following. If you look at it, it includes sources from Stephen King's book Danse Macabre, AND Douglas E. Winter's "Stephen King: The Art of Darkness" (which included a quote from King.) See here, you can clearly see that sources were included:
Carrie is largely about how women find their own channels of power and what men fear about women and women’s sexuality…which is only to say that, writing the book in 1973, I was fully aware of what Women’s Liberation implied for me and others of my sex. The book is, in its more adult implications, an uneasy masculine shrinking from a future of female equality… Carrie is Woman, feeling her powers for the first time, and, like Samson, pulling down the temple on everyone in sight… and using her “wild talent” to pull down the whole rotten society…at the end of the book. [1] <------------- source
Although what Carrie does at the end of the book - when viewed on a literal level - is violence, Stephen King did not intend for the novel to be anti-feminist. On a symbolic level, Stephen King viewed Carrie’s destruction of her school as a positive thing, as can be seen in his description in the aforementioned quote as the society having been “rotten”, and as can further be summed up in Douglas E. Winter’s “Stephen King: The Art of Darkness”,
The reader should understand that evil lies not in Carrie White but in her tormentors - and, more important, in the traps of society and religious mania in which her tormentors are confined. “I never viewed Carrie as evil,” notes King, “I saw her as good. When she pulls down the house at the end, she is not responsible.”[2] <------- source
The novel ends with an implication that Carrie has been reincarnated, powers intact, into a new family which embraces her for her powers rather than alienating and demonizing her for them. This can be seen as symbolic for the destruction of a society which had been oppressive to women, in order to make room for a society that treated women well.
--See? I included sources so I'm not sure why I got that message, nor am I sure why my contribution was deleted from the page.
Everything requires a source, not just quotations. Please read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The paragraphs beginning with "Although what Carrie does ..." and "The novel ends with ..." are unsourced. Find reliable sources before you restore, otherwise you could be blocked from editing. See WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source. And please don't argue with me about this; it's fundamental Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the source for "what Carrie does is violence" is...the book. Do I have to cite the book? & The source for "Stephen King did not intend for the novel to be anti-feminist. On a symbolic level, Stephen King viewed Carrie’s destruction of her school as a positive thing" is...basically the quote I list afterward (which is why I include a comma rather than a period - the quote is a continuation of the prior 2 sentences), and the book from which the quote was sourced.
And the source for the reincarnation implication ending is essentially also the book. Do I need to cite the book there?
You are reaching your own conclusions in all of the paragraphs not cited; you're not just summarizing the book. Every interpretation requires a source. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, none of your opinions belong in the article without sources to back them up. Did you read the policies I linked? If not, please read them before you message me again. And please continue any further discussion on the article's talk page. This is an issue for everyone, not just you and me. Sundayclose (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion on "With the Beatles", 'Three Harrison leads'
I'd like to inquire at what point essentially straightforward facts 'require a source': just run down the Beatles' track listings, noting Harrison's leads. It would seem the biggest sticking point is Harrison's CO-credit on "You Really Got a Hold on Me"; I could call it 'sole-leads'. Would there really be any basis for doubt? It's "just the facts". Here, BTW, is Harrison's list of (sole principal) leads:
Chains (Please Please Me...)
Do You Want to Know a Secret
Don't Bother Me (With the Beatles...)
Roll Over Beethoven
Devil in Her Heart
I'm Happy Just to Dance with You (A Hard Day's Night)
Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby (Beatles For Sale)
I Need You (Help!...)
You Like Me Too Much
Think for Yourself (Rubber Soul...)
If I Needed Someone
Taxman (Revolver...)
Love You To
I Want to Tell You
Within You Without You (Sgt. Pepper)
Blue Jay Way (Magical Mystery Tour (EPs or album))
The Inner Light ("Lady Madonna" single)
While My Guitar Gently Weeps (The Beatles ("White Album") (two discs)...)
.jpg)
.png)
_(14586469407).jpg)
