User talk:HM Wilburt

Chris Evans (actor) ‎

You have removed him three times now from the cat Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute alumni. I'm not sure how this is applied to such schools, but certainly for high schools graduation is not required for Wikipedia to consider someone an alumnus. Even one day of attendance is deemed sufficient. I suggest that you raise this on the talk page rather than continuing ot remove it. Meters (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alumnus/alumni (in Latin a masculine noun) refers to a male graduate or former student of a graduate program. A student is someone who followed the formal training, e.g. 3-year graduate degree program. Not a weekend workshop, or a summer course. Putting actors who follow a weekend workshop in the same stub as actors who graduated from an actual 3 year program sends out the wrong view. You could argue if Chris Evans was a drop out from the alumni program (3 year program) but he wasn't. He took a summer course.

Take it to the talk page for discussion. If you continue to make this edit without discussing it you may end up blocked for edit warring. Arguing with me does nothing. I didn't undo you. Meters (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, you removed him from the cat twice and from the ALma Mater field once (not three times form the cat). Meters (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that. Thank you for your comment.

I can definitely see your point about summer school, but the school does list him on their alumni page (according to the other editor). This is a drama school, not a degree-granting university. From what I can find they offer a two-year program, a one-year program, a 12-week full time program, and two–four-week intensive programs. It seems likely Evans took one of the latter programs. Meters (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HM Wilburt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HM Wilburt. The Banner talk 18:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! HM Wilburt (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to conform what i already knew and said. The result of the investigation is that the accounts are unrelated. An apology would be in its place. HM Wilburt (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And your revenge SPI is shot down as "purely disruptive" and not even checked. So an apology from your side looks more reasonable.

Ow, and can you tell me when I became an administrator? I failed to notice a vote... The Banner talk 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great apology The Banner. HM Wilburt (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:The Banner, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 21:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop harassing me with messages and warnings. Even after you've proven to be wrong by the Clerk you can't let go can you? Stop it now. You are being very hostile. HM Wilburt (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You already forgot your own bogus disruptive SPI? Sleep well. The Banner talk 21:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stop multiple times now. Yet you keep coming back for no reason other then the fact that you can't seem to let it go. If you continue this hostile behavior i will have to file a blocking request. Do not contact me again unless it is content related and you stick only to the content. HM Wilburt (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misguidance

Dear HM Wilburt, I just noticed you removed a credit of a Dutch actor, regarding "The Hitman's Bodyguard", stating: "Dutch Wiki confirmed there is no official source claiming actor worked on that film". Please be careful with statements like this, because what is actually said in the Dutch discussion is the complete opposite. Dutch Wiki actually confirmed that the credit is verified by the production, management, national newspapers, imdb editors, spotlight and the actor is actually heard in the film. Do not remove things just like that and do not make up false statements when you do so. That is misleading to the English readers. Thank you. Marvinvw (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwin you may not understand but Wiki needs verifiable confirmed sourced. Not selfpublished source like IMDB, Mandy or Spotlight. There is no official sources confirming actor's involvement with the movie. Wiki shouldn't be a haven for unsourced nonsense. HM Wilburt (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing the production company, the shepperton studio's, the management, the national newspapers, the imdb editors who claim they have received the essential information, the actor himself who talks about the movie in media, and me, who can hear his voice throughout the whole movie of being liars? why? What on earth is your reason for this? And what do you suggest for these type of credits, now that 3 parties have explained to you how they are credited and why it is done that way? Don't use imdb jargon on Wikipedia please.Marvinvw (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing anyone. Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources. It is not enough for you, Marwin, to write that the sources are verified. You actually have to proof that they are. I hope you understand that. That is how footnotes and sources work. The only thing that is available is 1 interview where the actor states that himself. This lacks RS and 3rd COV. Wikipedia needs more than that. I hope you understand that. Till then unverified data should be removed. HM Wilburt (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvinvw, nobody is calling you a liar. The fact is, however, that you cannot put things in WP based on your own knowledge, but only based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So what the actor says is irrelevant. IMDb can be edited by anybody, just like WP, and is therefore not an admissible source. If you have sources such as national newspaper, those might be acceptable as sources (if they are not interviews). --Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And is this also a reliable source? Or a nasty joke to seek revenge on other editors? The Banner talk 22:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has nothing to do with the above discussion. Why are you posting this? What has one to do with the other The Banner. RandyKitty is stating the facts of wikipedia sourcing. You and your friend Marwin may not like it or agree with it but it are still rules to be upheld by wikipedia. HM Wilburt (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I know that. It was in the national newspaper, which was added as a source in the article on WP. The Hitman's Bodyguard was mentioned by them, not by the actor in the article. That is why the addition to the page was made. HM Wilburt refuses to accept it as a source for some reason.(which in my opinion is against the rules of WP, but ok) and immediately started removing the credit very aggressively, before adding any "source?" citations. I have no idea what the reason for this is. Maybe because it happened before with actor Robert de Hoog, where he rigorously removed credits too and I corrected him (see my dutch talk page). Or many other actors for that matter. It looks like some kind of revenge action. That same day he tried to remove the credit from imdb and said in a discussion on wp: Look, it's not even on imdb so it must be a fake credit (manipulating sources, even though imdb is not a real source and it was actually there that morning) and seemed to be placed back twice and removed twice an placed back by them. I messaged them to ask about this and how they check it and the editors reacted that the credit was indeed verified. They explained to me how they do that and how it's credited. I have shown HM Wilburt this list of messages from them. So it was doubly confirmed. And still, HM Wilburt chooses to ignore the newspaper and their verification. So, then I decided to contact the management and spotlight, who both confirmed that actor indeed worked as a voice actor on this film. And how Spotlight pages from the management are very reliable because they are supervised by the actual production companies and casting directors who hire them. An actor would never work again would there be something like this made up. The page is maintained by the management I was told. Then I also contacted the actual production company who also confirmed it and told me how this was done by Shepperton/Pinewood and when the actor was there and explained how it's credited and why, and about the other people who worked on it, etc. Aside from this debate, we should take a good look at user HM Wilburt tooMarvinvw (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwin please respect Randy's comment. It looks like you are intentionally refusing to accept it. You still are only basing your sources on your own knowledge. You need to source it with verifiable information. This is the way how wiki works. One interview in a newspaper isn't enough. There needs to be RS coverage. HM Wilburt (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the national Newspapers, articles, production company confirmation, management confirmation, imdb editors explanation and proof, casting directors and producers and directors who supervise Spotlight, 3 sources confirming how these credits are handled and the actual actor's voice being heard in the whole film, what did you have in mind? Marvinvw (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwin, i don't know how to say this any clearer: Where are your links/urls to this proof? You say you have this but you supply no proof. IMDb, Spotlight and Mandy are user-generated. HM Wilburt (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]