Jump to content

User talk:Schazjmd

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Applejr35 (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 18 May 2020 (→‎Water Fasting: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

USA! USA!

OMG you're probably American too! Now I am nationally disgraced as well as time/efficiency-shamed! When you are next in London please let me salvage my pride with (1) a visit to the wood in question and (2) beer (yes, just not that cold) or tea or whatever! Sheesh. I will have to fly the Union Jack at half-mast tonight – or I would if I had one! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBaK, (last time I forgot to notice your preferred style of address, fixed it this time) - I enjoyed the challenge of trying to figure out what happened ten years ago and 4,790 miles away. I only came across Coldfall Wood through "Random article" and could there be a wood's name more intriguing than that? Then the added mystery of an editor claiming an historical article was "outdated"! It was an hour of pure fun. Schazjmd (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, brilliant, thanks! It is a nice little local wood, with a bit of history (which you probably now know better than I do!) but not really a player on the stage of, er, global afforestation. But do please pop over – just the 4,790 miles, eh? – and enjoy it for yourself one day. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced Menaces

Mr. officer -- our discussion is over, I understood that your section of Wiki is not willing to accept errors and improve, so there is no need to leave traces on my own page of useless discussions. And I see no morals in your interfering and menacing around. You claimed one day before that all voluntears are equal in rights -- no you corrected the errors (which was important) and the traces are gone, and nobody menaces you. Make up your mind: collaboration and "volunteer", or power abuse? Let us put an end to it, I see you were very helpfull in putting finally an end to the damaged state of the page, which lasts since 18 months. Thank you. And I see that you are reluctant to accept that this was NOT business as usual, and the marginal conditions are quite specific, in order to make an effort and see that things will not repeat. You made this clear, so there is no need for me for this evidence, since the other one has been removed. I wish you much fun your acitivity, and hopefully you will not be confronted too often with consequences of irresponsibility of colleagues. You know, this hiding of people who can take responsibility on Wiki, leaves one not many chances than yell -- to encounter one. Taking this objective fact serious, would be great for the community. PredaMi (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutralhomer off-wiki attacks

I have taken the liberty of mentioning you in my ANI report of Neutralhomer's off-wiki attacks. Hope you don't mind, but I felt it was important to include his attack on you. NedFausa (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on that discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


User:JoseRodil25

I haven't edited much lately on Wikipedia. However I'm curious why the edit I made on the May 25 page was reverted, as its own wiki page points out the birth date as this one and there are more sources on Google. Why not just add them instead of deleting the whole thing? The others aren't sourced.

My kindest regards for your work here, User:JoseRodil25.

Hi JoseRodil25, I explained my revert on your talk page. "I had to revert your edit to May 25. Per WP:DOYCITE, editors are going through the day-of-year articles to add sources to each entry, remove any that cannot be sourced, and ensuring that all new entries include an inline citation to a source. If you'd like to contribute to the effort by getting sources from the target articles and adding them to the day-of-year article (event, birth, death), your help is very welcome!" All edits that add new items to day-of-year articles without a source are being reverted. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Voss

Fred Voss
Thanks for your help. I've added a reference. How do I remove the potential delete tag? Themagicmancunian (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the blp-prod tag since there's a reference now, Themagicmancunian. There should be more, though. Everything you wrote in the article, you had to get it from somewhere, and those are your sources that should be cited. For example, all of specifics in "early life" need a published source to support them. Read WP:Verifiability. Schazjmd (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You did not get a response here but if it can be done, WP:VPT would be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee, good suggestion, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Good day Sir,

this is somehow random, but a couple of weeks ago I reported a fake account on social media to the Air Force. Some one was using the name of Major General Michael Carey, one of the founders of the ATLAS Space Operations. And now I have the opportunity to get in contact with another member of the Air Force.

To shortly introduce myself anonymously; I’m a German dude who just like to share some true stuff in my early 30st.

To the topic, I just added some missing award to the page of Nestle. I just want to know, if you just couldn’t verify the story behind it or if it’s not “good” for the image of the company?

I look forward to your reply.

Regard, Kurby Kurby147 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurby147, nice to meet you. When you add information to an article, you need to include a citation that explains your source for that information. The award that was added had no source so there is no way that a reader can verify the information. I'll add a link to your talk page to The Wiki Adventure; it's a guided learning experience to help you learn how to edit on Wikipedia, I think you'll enjoy it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your awesome quick reply. I will have a look at it and try again. The source I used is in German. Maybe i will find an English version as well.

Thanks again and have a good day! Kurby147 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurby147, there is no requirement that sources be in English, although it's helpful if you can find one in English. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the twinkle suggestion!Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Draft: United Kingdom Global Navagation Satellite System

I have submitted the page for review, but would like you to see if there are any other things I can improve. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Draft_UK_Global_Navigation_Satellite_System_(GNSS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited the draft, ChefBear01. I replaced the table with a proper template:infobox and removed the over-wikilinking. (Only provide a wikilink on the first occurence of a term, not on every use.) The draft still lacks inline citations. You listed many under Sources but none of them are properly connected with the content in the article. I recommend that you delete the Sources section, and move each of the references to the content in the article that each supports. (See User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners for tips.) Hope that helps, good luck with your article! Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have made the suggested changes and added some new parts, do you think it has enough to be published? ChefBear01 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChefBear01, good job on the citations! I did another copy edit pass. Just FYI, GNSS is only put in parentheses when it's following the spelled out term, to show what it is an abbreviation for. After the first time that the abbreviation is defined, you just use it without the parentheses. I think it's enough to publish. You're welcome to move it to mainspace rather than wait for an AFC reviewer, if you like. First remove the AFC submission template at the beginning and end of the article. Then click Page at the top, then Move, change the dropdown menu to (Article), and remove the Draft: portion of the article title in the field next to the dropdown menu. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I am only an confirm auto-confirm user, I am not sure I can move it myself ChefBear01 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChefBear01, autoconfirmed users can move pages. See WP:MOVE. I can't move it for you because I think it's important for your article to receive the proper new page review. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChefBear01, please stop putting (GNSS) in the article. GNSS is the abbreviation for Global Navigational Satellite System. You spell it out once and put the abbreviation for it in parentheses. Like this: Global Navigational Satellite System (GNSS). Then on subsequent uses, you just put GNSS, not (GNSS). Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you I will make the corrections ChefBear01 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChefBear01, never edit another editor's talk page by removing comments the way you just did on mine. You can remove anything on your own Talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok apologies ChefBear01 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChefBear01, I noticed that you're setting up your Talk page with specific sections. That's probably not going to work. All across wikipedia on article and user talk pages, the convention is to start a new section at the bottom of the talk page, and that's where conversations take place. A new conversation gets a new section at the bottom. If an editor uses a tool or script to leave you a message, it will start a new section at the bottom of the page automatically. I think you'll have a difficult time getting other editors to behave differently on your talk page than on every other talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to personally move the comments, however it keeps the page tidy if there is no page for what they are wishing to discuss then a new section could be made, it is just for things that I would probably get a lot of traffic. ChefBear01 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChefBear01, you'll want to study WP:INDENT before you engage more on talk pages, so you can learn to indent your replies properly. Some editors get a bit snippy when it isn't done correctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the page you requested ChefBear01 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChefBear01, you did it almost right this time. Your reply should have one more colon in front of it than the comment that you're responding to. You replied to a comment that begins with 1 (:), so yours should have 2 (::), and this one will have 3 (:::). I'll fix your response to demonstrate. Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the indent on my user page and I can see how it helps clarify where the conversation is, and what in particular is been discussed ChefBear01 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChefBear01, that comment should have had 4 colons (I fixed it for you), and now my reply has 5. I noticed on your revised Talk page that you instruct other editors to add the {{Help me}} template on your talk page. I suggest you remove that part of your instructions. That template is part of a notification system that involves a category, some bots and an IRC channel. It is not for an editor to ask you for your help. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the template and hopefully put enough colons
ChefBear01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection

You commented on one of my pages that was still under construction. Your comment was: Hi, I noticed your article International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection. What the article needs is significant coverage in independent sources to support that it is notable. I tried to find sources, but could only find the society's own site and publications. Without the independent coverage, the article is likely to be deleted. Perhaps you can find some offline sources that are about the society but not by the society? Schazjmd (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC).

I have edited the page and it is ready for a review. I think this entry has much more significance that some trivial entries already available: National Council on Family Relations.

Please, let me k=what you think of my page? I would openly welcome anyone to review, comment, and/or edit the page I have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali.shaila, I've made some format fixes to the article to make it consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism comments

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I will be sure to research the linked articles and more accurately tag my rollbacks. JAH2k (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note

thanks so much for your message. it sure is nice to hear something positive!! and I sure needed that, right now. much appreciated. thanks!!!! I can't discuss too much now, owing to the goldfish bowl that I seem to be in. but I really appreciate your sentiments. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal trivia on Brian Littrell

Hate to burst your bubble, but I found that piece from an old article that doesn't exist anymore, so it's useful108.46.251.85 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivia, and it isn't relevant to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

I reinstated the reverted evidence, please see [[1]], there is not references for any of the ones above or below. This edit did not require a source, it's a blue linked article should be fine. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, we commented at the same time; see your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. My apologies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::Hell in a Bucket, you're welcome to open a discussion if you like. I suggest you ping members of the day-of-year project for their input on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

might have had an edit conflict and not seen my update, you are totally correct. My apologies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hell in a Bucket, sorry, I guess we were both typing at the same time again. No apologies needed, I only came across the project's new guideline by happenstance myself. I suggested that they send a mass message to all pending-changes-reviewers to get the word out. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Quick to post credible information CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why only add information to some articles but not others?

Is there any particular reason why you only added the recent information about the planned withholding of GI Bill funds to three of the five institutions named in the source you used? Bellevue University and Temple University are also included. The information needs to be in the articles of all of the institutions or none of them; to only included it in the articles of the for-profit institutions is inherently and transparently biased. ElKevbo (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, because the news articles on the withholding only listed the names, no cities or other identifying features, I wasn't sure our Bellevue University and Temple University articles were the same schools as the ones in the VA announcement. The other three are clearly identified as for-profit schools and already had other investigative/controversial issues noted, so I was confident the announcement applied to them. Neither Bellevue University nor Temple University articles have any pre-existing content on prior problems, and neither is a for-profit school, so I was not confident these were the same schools, so I didn't add the content there rather than perhaps inaccurately label an innocent school that might have the same name as a questionable school. Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've set up a news alert on the withholding so I can update the articles again if there are new developments (the suspension being lifted, for example, or being made permanent). Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found another source that more clearly identifies Temple University (mentions Fox School of Business, which is also in our article), so will add it there. Still looking for something clear about Bellevue. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Washington Post article this morning specifies "Bellevue University of Nebraska", so that validates it, added it there as well. Schazjmd (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic - thanks so much for the quick and helpful replies! ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes verifiable information and how to cite so it doesn't get removed.

Well I'm a Cancer patient at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, had radiation and operation. By background I have 17 patents...first Internet telephony patent though I don't get any credit.

I go back every three months for checkups and stumbled upon a very interesting case study with data support that I thought was encouraging. When I went to Wikipedia I found that the article trashes everything related to the article and it just doesn't seem right not to have a balance in info.

So I added ref to the case study but it keeps getting removed. It's a bit funny but also a bit sad cause if the truth is distorted a little then we question everything about the article. I wrote to the NCI about their supporting documents that are referenced in the article that they were bad science. Interestingly they seem to agree and are thinking about making the changes I suggested.

Anyway I dont want to change the world ...Just give credit to some great research doctors at the PM. I'm so thankful they are there otherwise I'd be dead. So I want to see them get some credit for their work and encourage people not to give up hope. The Essiac page basically says everything is bad, herbal is a joke and there are no health benefits...definitely not true.

So can you help me verify the article so it sticks.

Alrix27 Alrix27 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrix27, sorry, I don't work on medical articles. There's a project of editors who do, you can approach them, but first really read through the link I gave you to WP:MEDRS to understand the level of sourcing they require. Btw, you keep saying you "added ref" but you didn't; you made a claim in an article to a study, but never added a citation to a published source that supports the claim. I'm really glad the treatment you're getting is working for you, but you can't add unsupported claims to a Wikipedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schazjmd, I really don't know why you spend so much of your precious time on stuff like this but I'm really impressed and glad there are people like you in the world. I'm pretty amazed actually. Yeah, I didn't ref the article cause I didn't know how, just added enough info so it can be found. I do care that cancer patients to get the full truth, but wow it's a lot of work and learning. I will give it a little more time, but it's complex and "tough sledding" as we say in Canada. Do you think I should keep trying to help get the balance right or give up. I'm ok either way. I feel bad for the research hospital at Princess Margaret Hospital because I was treated so well. When you walk in not knowing if your going to live, and walk out in a stable condition, and don't pay a cent for the treatment or drugs, wow you just want yo help in anyway you can. I will talk to the fi toes who did the primary research, show them the Wiki page and as them how they feel about the page and if it reflects the truth. Anyway, your a wonderful person...keep going, you are inspirational. Alrix27 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrix27, that's so nice of you, thank you for the kind words! I do understand how you're feeling and that it's frustrating. Sometimes we (any individual editor) know something, and it's aggravating that we can't add it to the appropriate article because we don't have written documentation from someone else to point to. A lot of people give up because of that requirement. But put the shoe on the other foot: if I can put something in an article because I "know" it, we're asking every reader everywhere to simply trust that I'm correct. And then every editor can write stuff, and we're all supposed to just trust that they know what they're talking about. It's simply unworkable. (And of course then you get two editors who each "know" something opposite...) So, we must have some independent reliable source that we can point to and say "there...that is what we used to verify the information". It might be incomplete, it might even be incorrect, but the reader can see where we got it and make up their own minds. It's the best safeguard we've come up with. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll keep going. Problem is I had the Case Study, it was printed in a Canadian a Medical journal, but I lost it...now your making me laugh cause the truth is coming out...next time I go to the PMH I'll get a copy and let's see what happens until then .. Alrix27 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the word "pandemic"

When I scan pages or lists, my brain sees pandemic. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking

Respected sir, I'm thankful to you. I did as you directed. I save twinkle gadget in my preferences to counter vandalism. I'm very much thankful to you for your great advice. I request you to keep advising me in future so that I can improve myself. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying

Conspiracy theories don't have reliable sources and secondly am i not verified human? the title and text says POSSIBLY CONSPIRACY THEORY why should it be printed in a stupid news paperBaratiiman (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baratiiman, I don't understand your comment. You added There has been 7 to 14 million Chinese deactivated SIM cards since the beginning of the outbreak those numbers could point to a massively higher number of the deceased. to an article without a reliable source that makes any connection between number of China Mobile subscribers and the coronavirus, so I reverted it and explained to you on your talk page why I reverted. Please keep in mind that Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is an article that documents (and debunks) misinformation, it is not a place to disseminate misinformation. Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see any sort of documenting misinformation.Baratiiman (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for showing me that most people are simply not reading what I write... I was going crazy. I really have no idea of what is going on. I'm shocked. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, I'm kind of doubting my own sanity (and eyesight) at the moment. Such a strange misunderstanding! I kind of have the feeling the editor made a mistake and chose to double-down rather than admit it. Striking because I can finally see where they saw an error. Might be best to just move on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such a useless discussion clearly caused by a stupid misunderstanding (or hasty reading). The saga continues here if you have time to follow. Only 4 editors are working on this page right now and we need more eyes to reach a consensus: USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents and related discussions--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, I see from your talk page that there are still ongoing disagreements. Tenacity can be a good trait, but I've found it can be misapplied on wikipedia. When I encounter an editor who digs in their heels on issues and gives no indication of interest in working collegially, persisting in trying to engage with them is just an exercise in frustration, in my experience, so I just go edit elsewhere...anywhere that editor isn't. Schazjmd (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you advice! I'm really glad you took the time to write to me and thank you for keeping an eye on my talk page. It is really greatly appreciated. Unfortunately my "wikipedia style" makes it really hard for me to do what you say. I focus on specific topics for a while before moving on. So it would almost mean giving up wikipedia in my mind. I have tried to apply that principle locally (moving on from one specific discussion or/and letting some time pass) but to no avail. However there is a silver lining to all this. The situation is improving slightly as more editors join in editing the pages. So I would invite you to join if you find the time. It really is a fascinating subject. A couple of relevant articles we are working on:

I hope to see you there! Given your background your help would be precious and you might know some additional sources of information to use. I'm very interested in the "official" position of the US Armed Forces regarding this "saga". At the moment it seems like an internal conflict is happening within the various branches on how to handle this situation with contrasting statements. Also the Air Force is strangely quiet in all this (looks like they took part in congressional hearings though). Very interesting! Did I tickle your curiosity at least a bit? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:El C

ISorry. ignore the autotnotice of my undo. I misclicked in my watchlist. Meters (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JamesJHG

Schazjmd, thank you for adding a suggestion to my Talk page. (i.e. try posting to Twitter) I'm a very infrequent editor. I must admit I'm confused as to why my latest contribution (to the 'Self-checkout' page) has been deleted. Your talk page indicates you're an experienced administrator. Is there any way you could advise why my most recent contribution to the page was deleted? JamesJHG (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JamesJHG, it looks like it was reverted due to synthesis. In other words, you drew a conclusion (It's been suggested that as most touch screens on self service checkouts are plastic (or glass) it's probable that bacteria and viruses (including the Covid-19 virus) could be being transmitted person to person worlwide via this route) that is not explicitly stated in the source that you referenced. The revert also referred to reliable sources for biomedical. The requirements for medical content sourcing are strict. I don't work in the MED area, so you can ask the editor who reverted for more details, but to me it looks like you cited a primary source and MEDRS requires secondary or tertiary sources. I hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not an administrator, just an editor like you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Thank you, Schazjmd, for having the kindness to help out! I'm looking at the references page now, and with your assistance attempting to document the sources. I would've hoped that might have been my initial experience when I came on board, but it appears someone took some rather perverse and selfish pleasure in putting me through the wringer (since I outed myself) which was never my intention, nor was I trying to show-off...I just wanted to add what was missing in the "mixed" reviews, because it's a serious oversight. The positive reviews that discuss my work specifically, and not the film as a whole, remain as important and as valuable to the film's legacy and success as were the negative ones, because the specific ones have no documentation on the page. In a way, it's quite bias as it is, and not an accurate representation. So, once again, thank you very much for your sympathy.45.50.189.120 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello sir, thank you for bringing me back to basic Wikipedia nationality. Thank you. It ’s like, can you take a quick look at my new article Bharati bhoogol likhane ke lie and tell me if there is anything you can do? All inputs are welcome, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't rate this nivel (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi, Schazjmd, thanks for your thoughts and advice on my work in progress Tony Castro (author). I have done a once-through edit, trying to clean up the bibliography, improving the references, taking out the grade school teacher's letter along with a few other things. I've gotten sidetracked on some Coronavirus caused necessities, but I hope to have the file ready for resubmission in a few days.

Meanwhile, your interest in assisrting me leads me to raise something that thought I'd done on my Talk page but I couldn't find. I'd made a copy of a response to anotheer editor on Notes, so here it is:


-- My question here is a about something a little different but related to the Tony Castro (author) submission. It concerns the response by a couple of other editors. They both left comments saying the article was "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I have attempted to resolve that issue by replacing some sources with hopefully better ones. I am continuing to do so.

But here's what troubles me:

Would you kindly go to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Castro?

I happened to stumble on it because of the identical name to the person I've written about. To be honest, I'd not paid much attention to it until yesterday when I was wondering about how that page handled being "adequately supported by reliable sources."

When I went to that page to study the sourcing I couldn't help but be surprised. Would you look at it please? Would you agree that the page is... well... "modestly sourced" to be kind about it?

-- FROM THAT PAGE References[edit source] ^ Geneall[dead link] ^ Seen at Wicklow Sailing Club before competing in Round Ireland Yacht Race as 'The Famous Grouse'. ^ Browning, Randy (2017). "Tony Castro". sailboatdata.com. Retrieved 31 January 2017. ^ Yacht Design Awards we have won www.tonycastroyachts.com, accessed 7 November 2019 --

The obvious question is too obvious to go into.

Suffice it to say that I would appreciate your advice on what I can do to improve the Tony Castro (author) submission, especially in the area of sourcing when it would appear that the present sourcing to be far more than the "modest" sourcing acceptable for approval of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Castro.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. --


Schazjmd, I'm a good soldier about these things. I'm just trying to do a good job on this page, get it approved, and move on. Silly, as it may seem, though, I'm enjoying what I'm learning. I'm too young to have experience the editors I hear writers talk about from years past, editors who were exacting and demanding of reporters who were like marine privates willing to do whatever they needed to do. So lead on. Thank you. AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleymchase, let me address Tony Castro first. That article was created about fifteen years ago. Wikipedia at that time was just trying to establish itself. There was more of a "wild west" atmosphere back then. Editors were encouraged to get stubs made because someone would probably come along later to improve them. Sourcing requirements weren't as restrictive or as enforced.
If you stick with the frontier analogy, think of it as the first settlers putting up houses and buildings any which way they could at the time. But now that the bigger cities have taken shape, zoning laws and construction codes have to be met. There are lots of "pre-code" structures still around, but new structures have to meet code. It can seem unfair, when your building has to have steel-enforced concrete and next door is a shack made of cardboard that hasn't been reinforced or torn down yet. So yes, I agree that Tony Castro is weakly sourced. But the existence of any poorly sourced article is irrelevant to any other article. (The essay Other stuff exists is helpful to understanding.)
Back to the new article. Basically, a new article must (1) prove notability, that is that the subject of the article is noteworthy enough to have an article; and (2) contain verifiable information.
Rule of thumb for general notability is three reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NAUTHOR, include more prescriptive measures of notability, which must also be sourced. There's a chart on my user page that I find helpful in evaluating sources for notability.
Sources for verifiability of specific information in the article do not have to meet significant coverage and not necessarily be independent (see WP:SPS), but do need to be reliable. A reader should be able to verify every statement in an article, and especially direct quotes. For example, the Tom Wolfe quote in your article is unverifiable.
It can be instructive to read through discussions at Articles for deletion (AFD) to see how other editors evaluate articles. Once an article is in mainspace, any editor can nominate it for deletion if they feel that it doesn't meet notability requirements. The purpose behind the articles for creation (AFC) process is to help new editors create articles that would stand up against an AFD discussion. However, except for a few specific instances (paid editors and unregistered/IP editors, for example), the AFC process is voluntary. Editors can work in their own userspace or draftspace and then move the articles to mainspace, and many just create directly in mainspace (many of those are speedy-deleted however). In addition, any content in an article that cannot be verified can be deleted by any editor.
Sorry for being so wordy; hope this helps a bit. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ashleymchase, one more thing. I was hunting around for other sources for the article, and I came across this article. That's a whole lot of notable information about Castro that you did not include in the article. Wikipedia articles are not tributes; both positive and negative information on a subject must be included. Consider whether you want to pursue the article, keeping in mind that the ethical and legal issues will be part of it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Schazjmd

Castro has made enemies along the way. I'm not certain about all the details, but I do know the Hamilburg agency vetted him quite closely when I was an assistant there. I know because I dealt with the PI who worked for Mike Hamilburg. A lot of his issues, I think, had to do with having slept with wives/girlfriends/daughters of some of these people involved. It was messy, I recall, and Castro had friends who hired a powerful lawyer who is one of those so-called "lawyers to the stars." I think that's how the guy who wrote the Journalism Review piece and Castro became "friends" afterwards. That guy is dead now, so it would be difficult to go back to him. But apparently while he was editor of LA Weekly, he assigned Castro a bunch of assignments. Los Angeles is also a very nasty political town. There's cliques and cliques within cliques. He angered quite a few people when he wrote a long story that knocked the halo off Antonio Villaraigosa, among them the guy who wrote the piece you linked here. Mike Hamilburg told me Castro back in his day became involved with this guy's then fiance at the LA Times. If you look closely at his blog, you see some stuff that can be easily verified as wrong. I know the author Ruben Castaneda who was mentored by Castro and was his best man. I got him on the phone a few minutes ago. I read him the blog piece, He says Castro certainly did not leave the Herald (where they both worked in the 1980s) "under a cloud." Sports Illustrated, Ruben says, hired him making a hundred grand or so when he was making half that at the newspaper. Then he left that magazine to work for director Michael Mann in television on a show that was canceled after about a year... As for the prison time... I had a chance to read the court transcripts (helping the Baylor library people catalog his papers for the Texas Collection). It is an amazing read, along with what I know from working with his late agent Hamilburg. Castro spent almost two years fighting some charges related to a tabloid story on which he was one of several reporters. He finally took a plea deal when the feds threatened to go after his wife. Castro pled to a count of mail fraud (for receiving payment by mail) and a count of tax fraud (not reporting about $30,000 on about $800,000 in three years of earings). There was no plea to anything about making up stories or sources, though there those were banded about. Good lord, we're talking about the tabloids here, not the New York Times! According to the court transcripts (these I've read), Castro agreed to do two years in one of those Club Fed prisons. But then the federal judge got involved at sentencing. He chided the prosecutors for even making the case. I guess the tabloid tried to avoid paying a court settlement with Clint Eastwood by blaming Castro and taking documents to US Attorney that implicated Castro. The transcript says they had hired a PI who secretly taped Castro's home. Pretty sleazy stuff all the way around. Anyway, this federal judge (I looked him up -- he was a Reagan appointee who is now dead) compared what the prosecutors did in going after a reporter to oldtime feds going after the accountant of the mob and not prosecuting the mobsters themselves. Truly unbelievable stuff. Then the judge reduced Castro's sentence to five months at a prison with no fences in the desert, where he taught GED English to white criminals who were high school dropout in the morning, taught tennis in the afternoon and umpired Little League games at night. All this is crazy and true. When I heard of Castro again in the mid90s, he was editing some community weeklies that one year won a bunch of prizes at the LA Press Club. This much he told me: The guy who wrote the Journalism Review piece was also an editor at a competiting weekly who had just lost out to Castro's weekly. The guy came up to him at the awards show, talked to him and asked him to write an article for him. This guy and Castro had kids about the same age, and Castro asked his kid to join his club travel team which at the time had Pete Rose's youngest son and a bunch of other hotshots on the team. I ssked Castro how he found it in him to get past the article this guy did on him. He acted like it as no big deal.

So what do I think of all this? It's almost like Castro has a couple of other lives. He says he wanted to write a book about what happened to him and going to prison even if only for a few months but that my old boss Hamilburg talked him out of it... told Castro that he should get on with life and write and not be defined by what had happened to him.

I don't see this side of his story as significant as his career. Hold up the blog and Journalism Review story. If they were dead-on rigtht, this guy would never have worked in the serrious writing business. But he wrote for another big city daily in the same town where all this happened. The local press club asked him to be on its board. He has written and had published six books by mainstream publishers that have been reviewed favorably in places that are considered respectable sources.

Finally, I guess I'm a bit confused on so-called "reliable sources." Several Wikipedia editors have harped to me in messages about how blogs aren't "reliable sources" and yet, if that is the case, then what does that make LAObserved.com, a blog that as I've said here, is written by a guy who apparently has a history with Castro that should make him suspect."

I'm not where this leaves the submission of this file. Perhaps just here.

AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleymchase, I wasn't proposing that you should use the LAObserved.com article as a source. I was pointing out that there's information relevant to an encyclopedia biography that is not included in the article. It's easy enough to find reliable sources now that I'm aware of the issue; The Los Angeles Times and The Sacramento Bee to start, that took me two minutes. (The Sacramento Bee story begins with ""A former newspaper reporter admitted using phony sources for celebrity stories sold to tabloid newspapers.") Failing to include a guilty plea to 8 counts of mail fraud and 1 count of tax fraud and the prison sentence would not make sense. (His wife was only convicted of tax charges).
But your reply tells me that you still don't get it: wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable, published sources. You're doing what is considered original research, talking to Castaneda and Castro, reading court transcripts. You need to base what you write only on what you can find in reliable, published sources. And you need to be objective. There are reviews of his books that are not glowing, but none of those are mentioned to balance the complimentary ones. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has the conflict of interest guideline, because when you're too familiar with a subject, it can inhibit your ability to view the subject objectively. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

You are probably correct on all this. Thank you for your input. Allow me to let it sink in. AshleymchaseAshleymchase (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to properly communicate with this user? I got a message but was not sure how to respond.

I wanted to complain about the removal of my comment and its evidence on the deletion page for TSLAQ article. I don't see why people think they are experts on every subject in Wikipedia. I would be willing to fix the article in question. I spend a lot of time studying stocks and investing. TESLAQ is a fact. Can you give an outline of what in your expert opinion, would be a proper Wikipedia article on this valid and real phenomenon? One example, there has been unprecedented short interest in TSLA stock. But these efforts have had no effect other than losing billions of dollars for these short investors. If you think about the enormous resources of competing interests (BIG OIL), such amounts would be pocket change for such interests. I could cite analyses that document this effect. Which is absolutely real. A quite real and valid thing to those familiar with Tesla, TSLA stock history and value. May we be allowed to document this some way on Wikipedia? Thank you. The age of fable (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The age of fable, I have explained that your comment on the AFD] had nothing to do with the article TSLAQ or its deletion, that is why it was removed. If you want to discuss improvements to the article TSLAQ, do so at Talk:TSLAQ. Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for reminding me to put my user info first. Cheers! Azvdo.art

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RL's Diary episodes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo in Real Time, Apollo 13

Hey Schazjmd, thank you very much for your quick Apollo in Real Time article. I am one of the team members who was involved in the Apollo 13 project. In that section of the article you state that "The Apollo 13 site went live in April 2020", which is certainly supported by the source you cited. But the site actually went live a month earlier. In keeping with the guidelines of "No original research", you should of course not just take my word for it. But if you do more digging you might be able to find a factual source that corrects this. Feel free to contact me if you're having trouble finding anything.

Thanks! Ke6jjj (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ke6jjj, I'll see if I can find anything that will let me clarify the release date, thanks! And great work...I'm in awe of this project. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closest I can come is Air & Space saying Feist spoke to Air & Space Senior Editor Tony Reichhardt in March, a couple of weeks before the site went live in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the launch on April 11. I've reworded the article to say The Apollo 13 site was live for the 50th anniversary of the launch in April 2020. I'd rather be imprecise than precisely wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NASA's history office announced the release with this tweet: https://twitter.com/NASAhistory/status/1238455021773168647. I'm not sure if Twitter is a good enough source. I'll leave that up to you. I'll keep digging.Ke6jjj (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ke6jjj, NASA is a verified account, I can use it. Thanks for your help! Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

I am sorry. My younger brother stole my laptop and wrote that. --Boil-in-the-Bag (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boil-in-the-Bag, your account has not made a single valid or useful edit, so I don't believe you. Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

That was really helpful. Although, I still am not sure if I am even responding to messages correctly. Ha!

I found Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District on the last page you sent me

but when I click on it, it redirects me to the Hollywood Blvd page. What are my chances of being able to create its own page?

Jack Fangles, currently the NRHP listing for the district redirects to the other article. When your article is completed and accepted, the reviewer will overwrite the redirect with your article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I saw your message on my talk page & I very much agree with you to a certain degree I’m disappointed to say this but I deleted the message & left a somewhat nonchalant response in the edit summary for that I render my apology. As for performing a WP:BEFORE, I can promise you that I always perform a WP:BEFORE prior AFD’ing an article but you know sometimes performing BEFORE’s can be tricky & this time it totally failed me as that AFD was due to trusting a software too much. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, thanks, I appreciate the apology. Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Excellent job on Shakir Ali Noorie, that draft was in bad bad shape. You made it a good presentation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear

For your help to publish my article as a liveMaizbhandariya (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maizbhandariya, you're welcome. Please don't address me as "dear". It is overly familiar to call someone you don't know "dear", thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on nomination for Deletion of the Duke Elvis page.

Thank you so much for your help. I'm a new editor on Wikipedia not even up to a week and this it the first page I'm creating, I don't want to effort and sweat to go down the drain. Are you a Nigerian? If you are you'll know Duke Elvis to be a public and notable figure. He is popular for his role on a very popular TV series the Johnsons. Please help me add your own discussion on the Deletion page of Duke Elvis so it won't be deleted and it will edited properly. Thank you VictorHB (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VictorHB, you're welcome for the help. I know how confusing it can be in the beginning. I am not Nigerian. Also, please be aware that is not appropriate on Wikipedia to ask other editors to take a specific position on a nomination for deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@schazjmd oh I'm so sorry for asking. I was just being curious. Like I said I'm a first time editor. I tired the link you said I should click on and I still couldn't add a contribution on the Deletion page. VictorHB (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VictorHB, you didn't know, that's why I told you. Let's try again: CLICK THIS LINK Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have clicked on the link, but I can't see any space to add a contribution, so where do I click on again? Sorry for the inconvenience caused VictorHB (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VictorHB, go to that page. Click Edit or Edit source the same way that you edit on a talk page or an article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Stacey Abrams

There seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle on this article, the bit about her having never won a contested election. I would appreciate your comment on this matter. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article structuring

Hi. I wanted to thank you for your helpful comment on Moxy's talkpage, where you laid out how I might update an old and slanted entry.

I am also considering working with some academics to create another related page, but I am struggling with how to format that page. It concerns a 2012 petition on change.org that kicked off a huge debate within the Christian community about Bible translation practices (specifically, whether translators should use familial "Father/Son" language for God/Jesus, or change those terms depending on the reaction of the target audience).

The petition was the subject of numerous prominent articles in 2012, but by 2013 and beyond, the debate had moved into major denominational circles and the petition was no longer part of the larger discussion. I tend to view the petition as a historic event that ignited an ongoing controversy in the Christian world, but perhaps this page would be better structured around the larger Familial Terms Controversy, with the petition as a section within the history of the debate?

I don't know if you can give much concrete advice based on the ambiguities in this question, but I'm hoping you can help me understand a bit more how such a page might work best, as I don't want to run afoul of content standards. Thank you, Noersark (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noersark, actually the best place to bring up that question and get input would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer. I have no idea how to navigate all these different forums and talkboards... Even in this conversation, I don't know how to respond to your comment except to edit my original post! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noersark (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noersark, navigating is confusing at first (and maybe for quite awhile, I'm still discovering corners I didn't know existed...). Your response is fine: you just click "edit" or "edit source", and add your response to the bottom of the conversation. Wikipedia etiquette is to indent each reply one additional level. We indent using a colon (:). My reply to your first post used one colon to indent. Your reply to my reply should use two colons (always one more than the comment you're replying to)...I added that for you. Now my reply uses three colons. WP:Indentation helps everyone keep track in conversations of when the "speaker" is changing. That's also why we always sign our comments on any talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~), which automatically adds our signature and a timestamp. Feel free to drop in with any questions you come up with, I'm glad to help. Schazjmd (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI post

Hi, thanks again for the advice. I have added that I started a discussion. Should I also add that I warned the users in question and that only after being warned did they stop with the edit warring, or is that irrelevant? --Tuvixer (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvixer, you can mention it, but keep in mind that ANI is not for edit-warring problems or content disputes. It's for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did not file the report at ANI because of edit-warring. That is just one segment of a problem that I have observed during the past few months, unfortunately. Thanks again for the advice, and any other advice would be really helpful and much appreciated. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could be more help, but I don't know enough about those articles to even form an opinion about which editors are POV-pushing and which are trying to edit in a neutral POV fashion. I can't even read most of the refs. But I don't seem to see good-faith discussions on those talk pages either. I wish you luck though! Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My only concern is that I was maybe to brief in the report. I could have explained in detail everything. There are many segments to this and this kind of behavior was done by long time users who know how Wikipedia should work, which makes it a bigger problem. If something would be unclear (and it could be because there are so many edits and all is filled with national and personal tensions by the users in question) to the administrator who is going to look into it, is he going to ask me to elaborate more? --Tuvixer (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvixer, another editor has responded to your post, countering your narrative. So now begins the "discussion". You can reply if you wish. Admins may just watch it develop, or may comment, or may say it's just a content dispute...there's no telling what will happen now. It isn't a formal process. When you have time, you might go back and read through some of the ANI archives to get an idea of how these things tend to go...it's educational. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Is maybe her/his comment to long? Can mine be of the same length as I would like to reply on what she/he said? --Tuvixer (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed my reply but it was removed by user Sadko, the users that is in the report. I don't know if this is regular. --Tuvixer (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvixer, it isn't regular but I see that it's been restored. Sometimes glitches happen, especially when several people are trying to edit the same page at the same time. I don't think Sadko would have done it deliberately, they're experienced enough to know that isn't appropriate.
The dispute that you're involved in illustrates why those articles are subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:DSTOPICS). Schazjmd (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What can be done then, to stop this disruptive editing? It seems that no administrator will intervene. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvixer, you only filed at ANI less than 24 hours ago. Discussions there can take days, even weeks, to reach a resolution. edit to add: There are other methods of dispute resolution, but since you opened the incident on ANI, that has to run its course first. But see WP:DR for future instances. Schazjmd (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mojica article

Apologies, I meant to do another revert. Obviously, this article was posted in the first place by either the subject of the entry itself or people close to the subject. The subject of the article was involved in one of the most notorious episodes of sexual harassment in recent times, and that became a historical episode of the #metoo movement. The article began largely as a fan type/promotional vehicle that contained no mention whatsoever of the widely publicized sexual harassment issue. The article was also begun by a single person who had never written or edited for Wikipedia previously. And ALL of the contributions were initially by this same one person until recently. Language used in the writing of the article contained uncommon phrasing in other things in the public record quoting the subject on unrelated issues.

Regarding the boasting about the lavish food at the dinner, one of the quotations is from comments made to the Associated Press, hardly gossip. Another comment was made by the subject of the article himself on Twitter. There was widespread media coverage in various mainstream outlets about these comments. Perhaps additional citations could be added, but some already are cited as footnotes. The comments were controversial-- rightfully-- because hundreds of thousands of North Koreans were dying, including children, or hunger. Therefore,it is pertinent to the subject and the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathradgenations, go to Talk:Jason Mojica. Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Henry Lawrence Jr.

Hello Schazjmd,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Lawrence_Jr.

Let me begin by quoting my favorite line from so many mob movies, usually said by someone hoping to avoid getting whacked -- "I meant no disrespect".

I see what you did, and agree it is much better.

I cut and pasted that sentence or two a bit impulsively, in part because it wasn't obvious to me how to insert the information while maintaining the overall structure of the page

No excuses. Thank you for the explanation.

I apologize for taking up your time. I will be more careful in the future.

Regards,

BanchangBanchang (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia

Thank you for your edits, it's just that you were editing the page at exactly the same time as I was (I had just created the page) so when I tried to save my edits I couldn't do so. Amirah Breen 17:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirahBreen (talk • contribs)

AmirahBreen, thanks for explaining. (By the way, please always remember to end your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) so your signature and timestamp will be automatically added. Thanks for contributing your article! Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note

Hi. Any advice? I could sure use it. feel free to let me know. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, I'm sorry, I don't understand. Advice about what? Schazjmd (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well, the issue has now been positively resolved. but check the last two items on my contribs history; you'll see. but I'm pleased to say, the final outcome of the matter was rather positive. you've been very helpful in the past, so I was going to ask your advice, input and help if it was needed. fortunately, things turned out well. I appreciate your reply. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi. would you like to view the conversation at this talk page section? you are welcome to do so. please note, I cannot make any comments there, but if you want to discuss, I can do so at my talk page or at yours.
thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sm8900, it looks like you got a lot of good advice. Are you looking for ideas on content areas to contribute to? Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well, no, not exactly, but I would sure appreciate any interchange or dialogue that you might care to have. if you want to hear about and to look at some of my current areas of activity, as well as a few areas and pages of my past efforts, you are welcome to do so. Here are some of my recent projects, activities, pages, etc. feel free to look around. thanks!!
well, that's about it for now. Just thought I'd give you a brief nutshell look at some of my activities here. if you want to discuss any of the above, feel free to do so. And yes, I am always open to input. I appreciate all your help and positive support over the recent past. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sm8900, great list, and I also see that you've found a new mentor which I'm sure will be beneficial for you. I think channeling your energy and creativity into the content side will be a huge benefit to the encyclopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Removed The Soundz

You are really a wikipedia editor they didn't have any articles or Press that the reason i removed his page wiki need reference links and this page don't have so please removed it thanks last warning from my side. don't restore his account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acafix2 (talk • contribs)

(SOUNDZ) This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acafix2 (talk • contribs)

Human Brain edit

Hello sir, with regard to my edit on the Human Brain page; I realise that you cannot directly copy from journals, my edit was not a direct copy. I have replaced my edit with my own words although for the record I think the original needn't have been removed. Here is the sentence from the journal: Sex-related differences in behavior are extensive, but their neuroanatomic substrate is unclear. Here is the sentence I added which was removed: While sex-related differences in behaviour are extensive their neuroanatomic substrate is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggines (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siggines, please study WP:Close paraphrasing. Schazjmd (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Merton likes baking brownies

Strictly as a point of curiosity, based on this edit, do you (like me) watch Twitter for people bragging about vandalizing Wikipedia? Maybe there should be a {Template:User} for such sly stalkers so we can add a box to our user page! NedFausa (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, ha! You do that too? I'm amazed at the number of joke/vandalism edits I've found because they can't stop themselves from bragging on Twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so jealous, though, because you beat me to the punch today. Guess I'll have to double-down to keep ahead of the old sarge! NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, I use tweetdeck and a search on "wikipedia", what's your method? Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same. I wish all such edits were harmless jokes like Alice Merton baking brownies. But many are vile BLP violations and other despicable trash. Anyhow, I'm glad I'm not alone in the fight. NedFausa (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, me too, because I can only take so much twitter. I'm sure I miss a lot, so glad you're also keeping an eye out. (I just caught a fantastic one, see my revert on Roger Sherman.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
Thank you for the "editing adventure". JTZegers (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucario

A Lucario For You
Thanks for letting me know how to not get blocked JTZegers (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Thank you for your reply on my question. I'm sorry that I broke Wikipedia rules. I will always read the Terms of Use next time. By the way, do you feel my edit was intentional vandalism or accidentally violated the terms? ChessEvan4 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChessEvan4, you're welcome. And no need to apologize. Many of us learn about different rules by breaking them and having someone point it out; it's only a problem if we keep repeating the mistake. Anyway, copyright is a big deal on Wikipedia. It means we can't include song lyrics, we can't copy content from other sites, and we can't just grab great photos off of the Internet and use them in articles. I'll post some links to your talk page to help you get started, and feel free to stop in to ask questions anytime. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Artist page

Hi I saw you worked on James charles page, I was wondering if you could help on the publication of someone else. I follow this artist on Instagram and YouTube and I created a draft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonn_Poker?markasread=190085898&markasreadwiki=enwiki Knowledgenerd95 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knowledgenerd95, I'm sorry but I looked at your draft and you don't have a single reliable independent source to support notability, nor could I find any myself. Please see WP:NCREATIVE for information on how to establish notability. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that articles on google news would count as reliable sources Knowledgenerd95 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgenerd95, you can learn more about reliable sources at WP:SOURCETYPES. (But also note that I said independent. Press releases and content written by or sponsored by the individual are not independent.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Water Fasting

Hi, was the issue that the studies linked are aggregational studies?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schazjmd&oldid=957388655"