User talk:CrazyBoy826

This is CrazyBoy826's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Before you ask me why I reverted your edit:

Check my edit summary.
Check if I sent you a message on your talk page.
If your edits are unconstructive, I will continue to revert them unless you stop.
- If you are confused about what "unconstructive" means, see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
If you are looking for information about the policies of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Five pillars. The 5 pillars are a summary of Wikipedia guidelines.
If you have an external connection with the article you edited, please see WP:COI.
If I said your addition was "unsourced", see WP:V. We cannot verify that the information is true without citations.

If you do not consider these points, your message could be removed.

Four Seasons (band) edit

Hello, apologies for improper etiquette, I am new to Wikipedia editing. I noticed you reverted my edit because an insufficient edit summary. I thought my edit summary was substantial, so I am not sure why it was reverted. The statement I removed from the article is factually incorrect. Here is the edit summary attached to my edit:

"The removed sentence says that the band was "one of two" (including the Beach Boys) to achieve chart success. This is factually incorrect. A look at the Billboard charts for the era show that The Supremes, Elvis Presley, and Bobby Vinton all had as many or more #1 hits than The Four Seasons during the same era. Van Tuyl's claim is a hyperbole, never meant to be taken literally."

The sentence I removed was: "The Four Seasons were one of only two American bands (the other being the Beach Boys) to enjoy substantial chart success before, during, and after the British Invasion."

As you can see from the [Billboard charts of the 1960s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_from_1958_to_1969#Statistic_by_decade) (aka the years "before, during, and after the British Invasion"), numerous American bands achieved substantial chart success during the same period. Many American bands had songs stay at #1 for longer than The Four Seasons. The Supremes had 22 #1 singles, The Monkees had 12, The Young Rascals had 10, Elvis Presley had 22, Bobby Vinton had 12. I don't think any reasonable definition of "substantial chart success" would exclude them. I realize the removed sentence has a citation, but if you read the source, the claim clearly has no objective measurement and lacks a citation itself; therefore it is not qualify as a primary source. In contrast, the Billboard charts (linked above) provide quantification of chart success that can easily be operationalized. By any reasonable operationalism of "chart success", the claim in the cited book fails to hold true. Therefore, I think the edit is warranted because it removes a factually incorrect claim. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.96.40 (talk)

Three editors have objected to this inappropriate removal, IP. Now you're edit warring. Knock it off. Grandpallama (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandpallama: Please assume good faith. We don't want to discourage new editors. Also, don't call anyone "IP". Registered users are not superior to IP addresses. Crazy Boy 826 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing bad faith about pointing out that there have been three reverts by three different editors, and that the IP has decided to complain on their talkpages instead of addressing their edits on the article talkpage, nor is there anything wrong with addressing the IP as "IP" in order to differentiate to whom I'm responding. Addressing an IP editor as "IP" in no way suggests they are inferior to registered editors. Getting a lecture about new editors from someone who just started editing a few months ago is the kind of thing that sets experienced editors' hackles on edge, but I know you meant it in good faith; that said, this is your talkpage, so I'll leave any further responses to you. Grandpallama (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect -- When my edit was reverted the first time by Thanoscar21, I received a message stating that my edit was reverted and to use the user's talk page to discuss, which I did. (I received the same message when my 2nd edit was reverted by you). I know that Wikipedia editors must deal with a lot of vandals, and I understand your frustration with people (like me) who don't know the system (like you). I apologize for posting to the wrong Talk page but I am trying to be transparent -- I did not revert Thanoscar's edit without first explaining my case to him and letting him know that I planned to revert.

I am not interested in Wikipedia politics (though perhaps it is unavoidable), but I am interested in sharing my expertise; I teach the History of Rock and Roll (including the British Invasion) at my University and I think that many articles in this area can be improved. I feel that I clearly outlined my case for why the sentence is factually inaccurate, but that the reversions made no substantive comment about why the sentence was reinstated, other than "it has a citation" to the book Popstrology. I have nothing against this book or its author, but it is clearly satire; it is *not* meant to be an encyclopedic book. This should be very clear from the book's cover, which states: "Use the pop music charts to reveal your personality traits, guide your relationships, and discover your true destiny." The jacket cover suggests: "Could your crippling sexual inhibition be a common consequence of being a Pat Boone born in the Year of Elvis Presley?" This should not be an acceptable source for an encyclopedic article, and it is disheartening to see Wikipedians treat its content as undisputable fact.

I hope you can understand my frustration and provide some clarity. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.38.232 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magdolna Rúzsa

Hi, I deleted the Magdolna Rúzsa site because I wanted to change the direction of the redirection. Magdolna is her stage name and her real name, that should be used, and Magdi Rúzsa (her nickname and old stage name) should be redirected. Unfortunately the deletion did not help. If you could change the redirection, that would be welcome. Br, vampeare (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my page

It was created by my.... It is yet to be created.. So please take off the speedy deletion notice from my page Nk TheWikipedian (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nk TheWikipedian: Wikipedia has a notability criteria. Pages may only be created if they meet the criteria. Please review the criteria before creating your page. Also, if the page is yet to be created, please start it at Draft:Nivas. K and move it to mainspace when it is ready. Crazy Boy 826 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nk TheWikipedian (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Black Site

Hi, I am Holly's assistant and have been asked to update her page. I'll be working on rewriting sections and adding in new books, new awards, and updating old information for the next week or so. I am attempting to follow what is already there so I'm unsure how to proceed, and unclear about what "unconstructive" means in this context. Any help is appreciated!— Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantAtHollyBlack (talk • contribs)

@AssistantAtHollyBlack: This is a case of WP:COI. Make sure to read the page before editing. It is highly discouraged to directly edit articles about yourself or someone you have an external relationship with. If you feel you cannot confidently edit the page, make a request on the talk page. Crazy Boy 826 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm not sure I understand. I'm simply adding in awards won and books published. Surely that's allowed? I'm not sure who else would update her site except someone who was asked to. It's very out of date. Can you explain what the offending edits were so I don't do it again? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantAtHollyBlack (talk • contribs)

@AssistantAtHollyBlack: You can update them if you provide a reliable source. Also remember to sign your posts on talk pages (but not on articles) with ~~~~ at the end. Crazy Boy 826 18:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course. I've added links to every published book and award so far, yet all my work is gone. Is there a way to verify myself? We are both just trying to do our jobs. Thanks. AssistantAtHollyBlack (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, CrazyBoy826. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating accounts

there is absolutely no reason you should be creating accounts for other people. If editors need a doppleganger but are unable to create it due to spoofing, they can go through the proper process at WP:ACC. Praxidicae (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Crazy Boy 826—Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll countersign that original statement - stop creating unnecessary dopplegangers - for users or scripts. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last message. Stop doing things like this entirely. Stop creating new accounts. Stop editing userpages that aren't yours. You are dabbling in areas where you shouldn't be. If you continue, I will take this to ANI and request an indefinite block. Praxidicae (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A1 tags

Hi, I removed your tag on Shomberg because it doesn't qualify for A1 - it seems to be an attempt at creating a disambiguation page. You shouldn't tag articles for A1, A3 or A7 immediately after they're created (you tagged this one 3 minutes after creation). The article creator may still be working on expanding the page, so it's best to wait at least 15-30 minutes. If no other entries are added to the page soon it should be turned into a redirect - but it was never an A1. Spicy (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: OK. I generally wait 10 minutes for draftifying and 20 minutes for speedy deletion, but I may have forgotten. Crazy Boy 826 20:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm George Eliot Scholar and you sent me a message earlier stating that you removed the external links I provided on the grounds that they were inappropriate. While I understand the need for caution in order to ensure that each Wikipedia page is accurate and useful, I don't believe that my external links were inappropriate. The Goerge Eliot Archive is a free, noncommercial archive dedicated to works by and about George Eliot. It also contains interactive educational tools such as the interactive chronology of her life and the soon-to-be-launched relationship web that provides a detailed, visual representation of her relationships. The external links I put on the pages I edited were meant to direct users to the appropriate page of the Archive: the page that was dedicated to the work the article was about. Just like Project Gutenburg, which I saw many external links to, my external links were directing users to a free, searchable, public domain version of the relevant text. Not only were these links directly applicable to the articles they were in, they also did not violate any copyright laws and provided access to material that was not appropriate for me to link in the article. Please let me know if there are any concerns that I did not address or if I have misunderstood what I read on the links guidelines page you provided a link for. Thank you for letting me know about your concerns and for discussing this issue with me! George Eliot Scholar (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Eliot Scholar: These links are okay, but make sure to review WP:COI before adding more. Crazy Boy 826 21:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user is asking that his autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

CrazyBoy826 (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

Block ID: #9873041 (BlockList • unblock)
Blocking admin: ‪Primefac‬ (talk • blocks)
Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Username of user". The reason given for Username of user's block is: "account created as test?".

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=CrazyBoy826}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=‪Primefac‬ | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Username of user". The reason given for Username of user's block is: "account created as test?".</nowiki> | 3=127.0.0.1 | 4=9873041 | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Username of user". The reason given for Username of user's block is: "account created as test?".</nowiki> | 3=‪Primefac‬ | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Username of user". The reason given for Username of user's block is: "account created as test?".</nowiki> | 3=‪Primefac‬ | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

The user "Username of user" was blocked, but now my main account is autoblocked and I cannot edit. It was created for a specific purpose, but now I realize it is unnecessary.Crazy Boy 826 00:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

Given the discussion immediately above, I'm inclined to let the autoblock do its job. Why do you keep creating these pointless alternate accounts? ST47 (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and will go further. CrazyBoy826: every time you create another account, I will block it and I will keep the autoblock functionality turned on. That should focus your mind somewhat. Nick (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-generic4im

Template:Uw-generic4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]