Jump to content

User talk:SuperMarioMan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.220.163.13 (talk) at 19:09, 16 February 2020 (→‎William Reeves: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Because you are amazing Patriot9 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Prey (1977 film)

The article Prey (1977 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prey (1977 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Good Job dude keep up the good work. Your good at what you do. Guningcj 27311 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Eberhardt

Hi again. Just letting you know the Isabelle Eberhardt DVD you located has now arrived and I have used it to finally write a full plot at Isabelle Eberhardt (film). Thanks again for finding it. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Congratulations again on the GA status. SuperMarioMan–Talk 19:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

GR & FMP

Why do you think GR and FMP are not reliable? Plankton55 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are built mostly on primary sources and user-generated content and it is often difficult to verify their claims without referring to secondary sources. Relevant discussion can be found here. SuperMarioMan–Talk 02:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Graham: recent page reversions

Hmm... hypothetically speaking, say an editor managed to engineer a radio interview with him, and one of the questions asked was "Were you a director at Five Rosecroft (management) Limited?", and he basically replied "Yes," adding "I resigned in 2001." Would that constitute a usable and reliable source, non-original research, and allow the info on the CompaniesHouse page online to be used without fear of it being removed? Plankton55 (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plankton55: No, because the Companies House site is a public register. See WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth ..."

If a person's date of birth isn't easy to find we shouldn't be making OR analyses of sources like Companies House to ensure that Wikipedia includes it at all costs. See WP:BLPPRIVACY: we include only dates of birth "that have been widely published by reliable sources (i.e. not Companies House, not Genes Reunited, not Amazon cloud-computing services or anything else), or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." As Graham doesn't appear to have published this information on his own site, there is no reason for us to do so here.

Now, of course, if Graham were to go on BBC Radio tomorrow and clearly state exactly when he was born, that would be a different matter. SuperMarioMan–Talk 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't my asking, why is all of this (Graham's exact date of birth, whether or not he once directed a company, etc.) so important to you in the first place? If the information were truly notable and encyclopaedic we would be able to find it in something far more reliable and far less obscure than the likes of Companies House and Amazon AWS. SuperMarioMan–Talk 20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Hello,

Is there anyway for this page Lamont Sincere to be unprotected. I would gladly appreciate it.

Emilywlk (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP Topic Ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no. The entire dispute is one big WP:IDHT and I have no interest in debating it again. SuperMarioMan–Talk 20:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having had more time to gather my thoughts I have now left a statement on the requests page. SuperMarioMan–Talk 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The request for arbitration has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoyetu again

Zoyetu, who was "indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of living persons of any kind, broadly construed" two months ago after you reported him at ANI [1], is still violating Wikipedia policies by adding trivial negative information to articles about colleges, violating WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and in at least one case WP:BLPCRIME [2]. Note, for instance, the "Incidents" sections of the following college articles, all of which sections he created in toto:

He also made the same sort of policy-violating additions to Hull College: [3], which Kudpung immediately deleted: [4]; but Zoyetu immediately reverted: [5].

It seems to me from these types of edits that Zoyetu still does not understand Wikipedia policies and does not seem interested in learning them or abiding by them. I would like Kudpung to look at these examples as well and opine. I don't know whether he should be reported immediately at ANI, or given a major and final warning, or given some immediate sanction given the fact that he has been warned multiple times about adding trivial and deliberately negative information to articles, especially articles pertaining to current institutions and/or living people. The WP:BLPCRIME violation, which was made 6 weeks after his BLP ban [6], is already a violation of his topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, the ANI closure was specifically for BLP infractions, so I don't think I have grounds to block just yet. Nevertheless, this editor has a tendentious propensity for newspaper style reporting of incidents which is not acceptable under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, whether with or without sources. I will give them a final warning, and point them to WP:WPSCH, and if they persist, I will block for disruptive editing. There won't be need for a peanut party at ANI for this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the tendentious editing from the articles, which makes me involved, so if a content dispute arises, another admin will need to do the blocking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung; thanks for your participation. Just to clarify, Zoyetu's topic ban was "from any edits relating to biographies of living persons of any kind, broadly construed" [7] [8], which this WP:BLPCRIME-vio [9], made 6 weeks after the TBan was enacted, is definitely and obviously in violation of. Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's been extremely discourteous on his talk page and reverted all the cleanups of his newspaper-style scandal reporting, so I'm too involved to use my tools now. All in all, though, here's plenty to block him for now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a month by Yunshui. Need to make sure he doesn't go straight back to those articles as soon as his block expires. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, we should put them all on our watch lists. If he does persist after his block expires, he's headed for a site ban, because no one can babysit all of one editor's edits. Softlavender (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the user's fundamental misunderstanding lies here: [10]. If it continues to influence them after their current block has expired an indefinite block looks inevitable. I'll be keeping an eye on their edits. SuperMarioMan–Talk 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest user:Jackbills670 "buy a degree" sock

user:Documentint [11] Meters (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

taken care of by user:Alexf Meters (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Nowahaladeyo

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I do not appreciate you going onto my page with your arrogant attitude telling me that I have no right to edit something minor without a valid reason. I did not edit anything in, I just took it out because at first, there was no citation. You clearly don't know how Wikipedia works. If you add a new section with no citation or link, then it's not a valid source. Taking a small template out for having no link is not major. I have noticed articles on your page so I can point out your hypocrisy. Lecture me again and I'm taking this up with admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl1993 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pearl1993:, SuperMarioMan is an admin (as am I). You calling this message, which includes links to Wikipedia policies and includes "please" and thank you", as "arrogant" is ironic given your message above wherein you tell an admin with 45k+ edits and 12 years of experience that they "clearly don't know how Wikipedia works". If this is the type of confrontational attitude that one can expect from you when pointing out concerns regarding your edits, Wikipedia may not be the place for you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jezebel's Ponyo: If SuperMarioMan had at least informed me about the basics of editing in a more constructive way instead of berating me then I would have appreciated his comment. He didn't. I'm sorry but his approach to me WAS arrogant. I have to provide a reason for even taking a minor edit out. And he finds that a problem. As I mentioned, I did not see a citation at first and I get a notification saying that I have no right to do so. That's not exactly fair is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl1993 (talk • contribs)
@Pearl1993: They did not "berate" you. You are supposed to be explaining why you are removing content using edit summaries. This edit where you removed content and its accompanying source looks like vandalism, especially given that you had already done it once and were reverted. Both editors reverting you left clear edit summaries explaining why they were reverting you and SuperMarioMan left a completely polite message on your talk page further explaining the reason you were reverted. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jezebel's Ponyo: You don't have to keep using quotemarks everytime. And that didn't used to be the case on Wikipedia. You were able to take out a template that had no citation without using the edit summaries. I used Wikipedia a few years ago (I was another user) so I remembered that that wasn't so much the case. This is something that must have changed over the years because I only remember that you had to provide a citation to edit something IN, not take it out. I am getting very frustrated with how this is going. I already mentioned why I took it out, because there was not a citation involved. So why is it that it got edited with no source linked yet I get a notification for taking something out for not using edit summaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl1993 (talk • contribs)
I'm using quote marks because I'm quoting your words. The quote marks separate the words you've used from mine, which is what quote marks are meant to do. You repeatedly removed content along with two related sources without an edit summary. The sourced content was restored and two editors explained why it was restored. It was you who made the mistake, believing the material to be unsourced. Your response to having been asked to explain your edits was to lash out at the editor pointing out your error, telling them they don't know how things work and calling them a hypocrite. My sole point, and one that you seem to continue to miss, is that this is not an appropriated way to respond when editors provide you with information and guidelines when you give all appearances of being unaware of them. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pearl1993: The sources are linked – they are two pages of the same book. The source details are contained in the two sets of coding that begin "<ref name". That coding produces citations 65 ("Bentley 2005, p. 37.") and 190 ("Bentley 2005, p. 124.") in the "References" section further down the page. Details of the book cited can be found in the bibliography at the end of that section. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeoville, IL

Hello. On the page Romeoville, IL, I had posted a list of the town's mayors. This list was removed by a moderator. Can you please copy the deleted list into my user draft page so that it can be approved for posting by an admin? I work for the village and was told this is what I must do. Thank you. Romeoville.mark (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Romeoville.mark: I have created your user draft page at User:Romeoville.mark/Romeoville, Illinois and copied in the table. You will need to find reliable sources confirming the names and dates before putting it back in the Romeoville, Illinois article. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How many of these names will I have to source before I can get this cleared? I can probably find some sort of newspaper article online about the election of some of the most recent officials, but citing the older ones will be very difficult. Romeoville.mark (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Romeoville.mark: In accordance with the verifiability policy, all entries on the list would need to be sourced. Unsourced entries could be challenged and/or removed. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy Episode

Yes it does, infact I've replaced the YouTube source with a direct source from Getty Images in which she says this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungbaby33 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Yune

I work directly with Mr. Yune and we've been clearing up much needed data — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexin1 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdiofrank

Might want to keep an eye on this one in case it's RafikiSykes, whose latest sock was recently indefinitely blocked. Whoever Rowdiofrank is, he isn't new. And WP:GOODFAITH has nothing to do with stating it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he's been indefinitely blocked, and I see that I'm not the only one who noted that he was an obvious sock. Whose sock remains a question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that User:DavidJanet and User:DavidJanet88 are sockpuppets of User:Otto4711

https://www.reddit.com/r/daverubin/comments/aw9yuv/dave_rubins_husbands_wikipedia_sockpuppets/

2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:50C6:306E:B7B7:E7F4 (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request

Hello! I have a odd request. I understand completely if it is a task that cannot be done. I was making a personal database of my own edits going back to 2006. I have that part done. I was wondering if you could extract the data from my deleted edits and send them to me. I only want the information for personal record keeping data. If this cannot be done or something that should not be done, I understand completely. I just want to know if this is possible. Hope all is well. Red Director (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Red Director. You have 1,535 deleted edits, the oldest of which was made on 16 April 2006. If you have email enabled, I could send you the list of your deleted edits (showing the date and time of each edit, the names of the pages edited and the edit summaries) as plain text. Let me know if you'd like me to do this. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have e-mail enabled on here. That is fine. Do you need to know the e-mail on your talk page? I have it linked to my enwiki account. Red Director (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: I've emailed you the list. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Red Director (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kakkar

Hii, Please remove creation protection from Tony Kakkar. When you protected this page Tony was not notable but now he meets Wikipedia:Notability. Many of his songs has reached over 100 million views. And there are many reliable sources too. Thanks! - CptViraj (Talk) 09:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for letting me know, I did not know, will be careful next time Klasherax (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you. I really need to start making better contributions. Debo steve (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns.

Hi there, Not everything is readily available on an internet source. Sometimes, just sometimes, family members and friends know more than is available on the internet. Perhaps it is best to assume Good Faith, as is an underlying principle of Wikipedia, rather than just deleting relevant and useful information, simply because you personally don't like the source. Otherwise, copy death certificates can be ordered from the GRO at this link if you would like to verify the information yourself. Mangwanani (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mangwanani:. I wasn't aware you knew Mr King personally. I'm very sorry for your loss.

I didn't revert because I thought you were acting in bad faith or because I personally disliked the source. As stated in my edit summaries, I reverted because the contents of our biographical articles need to be verifiable from published sources, and in this case it wasn't clear that the source is about the same Martin King (since it doesn't mention that he was an actor and continuity announcer). Personal knowledge isn't verifiable by the reader.

Before today I'd looked for obituaries or press coverage several times and failed to find anything. However, when I looked again earlier, I did find this, which I think could be used in the article. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you've still deleted his name and birthdate. What a way to respect someone and allow others to at least try and make sure he is remembered. Your inability to find something, does not make it any less true.
Could you please fix the following on the page relating to the Sky as none of this has any links to sources to prove its verifiability? If you can't provide sources for everything here, I'm afraid I'll have to delete this entire paragraph.:

At night, the sky appears to be a mostly dark surface or region spangled with stars. During the day, the Sun, and sometimes the Moon, can be seen in the sky unless obscured by clouds. In the night sky the Moon, planets, and stars can be similarly visible in the sky. Some of the natural phenomena seen in the sky are clouds, rainbows, and aurorae. Lightning and precipitation can also be seen in the sky. Birds, insects, aircraft, and kites fly in the sky. Due to human activities, smog during the day and light pollution during the night are often seen above large cities.

Mangwanani (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS - If you want to verify his name and birthdate/location, Birth certificates from New Zealand can be ordered here :) Mangwanani (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangwanani: I mean no disrespect to anyone. I'm sorry if you disagree, but my edits were done in good faith and, to the best of my knowledge, in accordance with our content policies and guidelines. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted file page copy request

Hi! If you'd be willing to provide a copy of the page (licence tags and description) for File:AH Kardar 1954.jpg for when it was created locally and deleted locally, it'd be much appreciated (I think the file may not be eligible for commons, and more page history would help me figure that out.) Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: Sorry for the delayed response. I've sent you two emails containing the first and last versions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks so much! Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph-break in HTML

Using <p> to break paragraphs can cause formatting problems. That's how that tag was used for a long time, years ago, but it's technically a container tag <p>some stuff</p> so using it alone is a misbalance that can cause all later text to be considered part of the same paragraph. See for example how my comment didn't break from yours at the end of here. I think <br> (technically <br/>)--linebreak--works (see my followup edit to yours), but an open/closed tag, or maybe a self-closed <p/> would be more semantically correct (per Help:List#Paragraphs inside list items). DMacks (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll stop using that piece of code. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Reeves

On SVU Season 17 Episode 41 Witnesses,

Was Benson lying to William Reeves that [William's friends were saying, "We went home, but William stayed back with that unconscious intoxicated woman"]?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuperMarioMan&oldid=941125037"