User talk:Amccann421
Status: Unknown 
Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. I'll respond as soon as I can. Thank you.
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Clete Blakeman
Hey I saw you changed Clete Blakmen's page back but why I speaken the truth u see his jacked up calls don't you. I fudgin swear he plays favorites at times.
71.85.204.28 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Jarrett
- Maybe you believe that, but don't state your opinion as fact. You've been warned more than enough times. Vandalize again, and you'll be blocked from editing. Amccann421 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Mistakes
Hey Amccann421 thanks for the heads about that I will make my contributions better you get back to me on my talk page bye :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANGEROUS REALITY (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit War
An edit war is in progress on the article Millenials and some administrative intervention may be necessary. WQUlrich (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- @WQUlrich: I'm not an admin, but hey, I'll take that as a compliment. Amccann421 (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Speedy
i'm still working on this page. i need to find all the citations. you have deleted my page before it was even posted. i did not publish it yet. now i am scared to work on it, if it is just going to be deleted Sonofdam (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sonofdam: It has not been deleted – it has been marked as an article to be deleted. It doesn't prove why the band is notable. Please see our guidelines on general notability and notability for bands. If you still think the article should remain, then leave your reasons on the article's talk page, and the administrator reviewing the page will take your comments into consideration before deciding to delete. If you're still working, it will likely be allowed to stay, for a time – unless it continues to fail to prove some significance. Amccann421 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- this is just a quick google proof of life. do you think i should try, or was it not significant enough.
- it could take me a month to get all my ducks in a row. thanks.
- @Sonofdam: That doesn't seem notable enough. The band doesn't seem to have received any independent coverage or done anything else that would deem them notable enough. The links you've provided certainly prove that the band exist(ed), but existence does not indicate notability.
- A word of advice: don't be discouraged or scared if the article (or any other contribution of yours) is deleted. Be bold, and don't be upset if your actions are reverted. Trial and error is key, especially as a new Wikipedian. Amccann421 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
was my article on electric peace deleted already. i had to go to sleep. i read the "not notable garage band who cares" article. pretty strict. what is the Sonofdam (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) thing about.
oops
Sonofdam (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sonofdam: Yes, it was deleted. By the way, the "garage band" article is actually an essay – it's not official policy, but many editors adhere to its pointers. Amccann421 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Tips
Hi I know your really busy but could u give me some tips on how to get my edits approved Thanks for your help:) from DANGEROUS REALITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANGEROUS REALITY (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DANGEROUS REALITY: First of all, don't add nonsense to an article (like you did with this edit to Liver). This edit to Human digestive system was an improvement, but it duplicated information that was already in the article and did not need repeated.
- I would recommend you read the welcome pages, as well as Wikipedia's core content policies. Feel free to return if you have any more questions.
Amccann421 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Riker Lynch's page
You left me a message that you deleted my edit to Riker Lynch's Wikipedia profile page. I added his role in a 2017 movie and added the reference of an IMDb page. Your message said that the IMDb link was not a valid reference. He has retweeted the IMDb link so would that be a valid reference? If not, please let know what you think can be done. I am unsure how to cite films in the filmography section. Get back to me when you can, thanks. Tomikofoster (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- The only semi-reliable source I can find is Just Jared, but does that even count? Better if it's from Variety or Entertainment Weekly or some magazine like that. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 01:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh okay thanks for letting me know about that. I think I will just wait until a more reliable source comes up. Tomikofoster (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Marilyn Manson
I notice you have been the one to take down my third attempt to edit the Marilyn Manson article. I think you should read the post I left on the.
Official Government Records and sources currently cited in Wikipedia article aren't legitimate? Hmmm... or is it because the User is new to the community and her edits are being judged more on her lack of previous edits than on their quality?
I notice you have been the one to take down my third attempt to edit the Marilyn Manson article. I think you should read the post I left on the previous editor's page. Notice below that I note how I attempted to use a source other than Manson Wiki but I was told that the official YouTube channel for Larry King Now was not a valid source. I used Manson Wiki because, if you check the sources on the page, it is cited over and over again. I was also told the United States Patent and Trademark Office was invalid. No one is responding to the talk pages that I keep being directed to. If you are not able to help me resolve this, then I am going to have to go through the dispute center.
Interesting thing. I made these Marilyn Manson edits as part of a Graduate Seminar assignment all about crowd sourcing. I'm supposed to explore how it works and report my findings. So far, I have to say, I'm really not impressed. Though I haven't run into the problems of misinformation everyone is worried about, I am getting my legitimate information rejected without a clear basis, with the implications that better standing in the community might make my edits more acceptable. I was told to sign up for an account the first time, and give more and better sources. I did both of these things, yet was rejected again, told to go to the (Marilyn Manson article?) talk page. Well, okay, I thought. Sounds reasonable. So I posted there, but no replies from the user who keeps rejecting me and telling me to visit the talk page.
In addition, as I look at the article I'm trying to edit, I see very questionable sources that have been accepted as legitimate. I also see the same (or similar) sources that I am trying to use to cite my information. Yet my edit keeps getting rejected. That begs the question. What is really the issue here? I am fairly certain my new edit will get rejected. But what will be the basis this time? My information is now more thoroughly documented than most information listed in the article, and doesn't have a whiff of "original research" in it. So what's really happening here? Is there some kind of implicit hierarchy that undergirds wikipedia? Am I being excluded from the wikipedia community because I've chosen too important an article to edit without enough edits under my belt? If so, isn't this contrary to the anti-elitist, post-modern notions of knowledge that Wikipedia was founded on?
Anyway, I have submitted the following edited version without receiving further guidance. Just to be clear, this means that any improvement in the below entry is due to my own guesswork, not from any communication I have received from Govindaharihari, who keeps rejecting my edit without much feedback.
Brian Warner has mentioned on at least two occasions that the name “Marilyn Manson” is actually a trademark, not a stage name. In a 2015 interview at the Cannes Lions Festival, the musician said “I trademarked the name Marilyn Manson in the same way as Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse. It’s not a stage name. It’s not my legal name. Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner.” [37] Manson also mentioned this in a 2013 interview with Larry King.[38] Trademark registration records held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that Brian Hugh Warner registered the first of four trademarks on “Marilyn Manson” on December 20, 1994, protecting "entertainment services; namely, live musical performances of a solo musician and/or musical group; and fan club services." Three subsequent trademarks, issued between 1995 and 1999, give Warner exclusive branding rights to “Marilyn Manson." In both the Larry King and Cannes Lions interviews, Manson reports using these trademark registrations in order to secure a cease and desist order to silence media who were wrongly blaming him for the Columbine High School shooting after one journalist erroneously reported that one of the shooters was wearing a Marilyn Manson T-Shirt. [39]
Govindaharihari previously rejected my edit on the basis of "original research," so I have attempted to make sure there is nothing remotely interpretative about the above information. He/She also rejected the previous edit on the basis of the legitimacy of the sources. However, the Larry King interview I referenced is actually used elsewhere in the extant Marilyn Manson article, except whoever posted that reference used the Manson Wiki. I used Larry King's official YouTube channel. which qualifies as a primary source. I thought a primary source would be preferable to a tertiary source like Manson Wiki. I am certain it would be elsewhere, but clearly I am not versed in all the rules and practices of wikipedia. At any rate, I made sure that both interviews I cited came from Manson Wiki since this appears to be a source that has been accepted as valid in this particular context. As far as the records from the United States Patent and Trademark office, I am unsure how to make those more acceptable. The Untied States Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency required to keep official documents. If Govindaharihari could share with me why there are concerns about the legitimacy of this source, perhaps I can do something more.
If you reject my edits again, please give me detailed feedback on how you would like them fixed or explain to me why it is not relevant to Marilyn Manson's wikipedia page that he has trademarked his name. If you do not have the time or ability to address these concerns, please direct me to someone who can. It is my hope that this is merely a misunderstanding.
JessamynSwan (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally my edits were rejected again. And incidentally, I did not receive much feedback. So let's get down to business and do what Wikipedia is supposedly famous for: Collaboration.Help me fix this so that it is acceptable to you. And while we're at it, let's go ahead and delete every piece of information in the Marilyn Manson Article that uses Manson Wiki as its source and make sure that every piece of information is accurately sourced. Let's do it. I'm in this for the long haul. JessamynSwan (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)