User talk:Leijurv

Your UTRS Account

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I just clicked that login button for fun, I saw on the Wikipedia talk that non admins could log in and was curious if I could since I'm extended confirmed now. Looks like I can't. I wasn't expecting it to work anyway so it was unsurprising. Leijurv (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maths banner

The maths rating template hasn't been upgraded in a long itme, and it doesn't know how to handle redirects. Putting the maths banner template on them, despite the big red warning label, is the only way to get them into the correct maintenance category. I don't like it either. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

All right, I guess. My monkey brain just saw the red text and thought "bad" lol Leijurv (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I did screw up, because that one's actually not a redirect; there were hundreds of other number redirects I was blasting through, and I guess I assumed that was one, too. Sorry for the confusion! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Leijurv. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!Template:Z191 Leijurv (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your points about SLS cost on the talk page

Hey, just to let you know, I've got some new info I'd like to bring to that conversation that I think you might find pertinent. However, I think it'd be best to wait for the ANI and Arbcom proceedings to finish first, considering the combative behavior going on right now. I hope you can understand. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Ok. I don't know what an IBAN would mean for the dispute on the article... would it mean you couldn't weigh in if Moamem started a RfC or vice versa? I wouldn't hold your breath on arbcom by the way, I emailed them to get unblocked in July 2018 and I only got a reply in late October 2018. Leijurv (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think participating in an RfC would be an issue as long as I avoided interacting with or mentioning the other user, but I'll have to read up on the policy to check. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Jack of all trades change

Sorry if this is not the correct format, first time I am doing this and trying to follow the guidelines. I removed the quoted part that I did because looking at the source I saw it was just a personal blog. Looking it up I could find no concrete evidence of this add-on being an actual part of the quote. Many people have added it, but the phrase that dates back to at least 1732 goes as follows "A jack of all trades is of no trade." This is according to Martin Manser, The Facts on File Dictionary of Proverbs (2002) where he pulled the quote from Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia: Adagies and Proverbs; Wise Sentences and Witty Sayings, Ancient and Modern, Foreign and British (1732). The last line seems is really new, and completely changes the meaning of the proverb. Instead of the jack of all trades being essentially undesirable to it now being preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.244.21 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the source doesn't appear to be reliable. In the future you could say that in the edit summary so that it's clearer. I'll self revert then :) Leijurv (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Leijurv! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over a hundred and fifty other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! (p.s. I don't invite people at random anymore, but I noticed your RFP/R request and wondered if you wanted to try :) ) Ed6767 talk! 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard

Here is the reference, a clip from Season 5; he is literally called Richard. "'Rick and Morty' posts a scene from upcoming season 5 online". EW.com. Retrieved 2020-07-25. 51.171.113.150 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source, I'll accept the edit. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone else reverts it, because this sort of this will generally need consensus on the talk page. Leijurv (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

85.238.103.29

Two weeks ago you reverted my change pointing I have to add the appropriate source, which means you have some experience at pointing how to do a right way. I added then and that was applied by... someone. Now that's not the case. I have a question similar to Richard's one. I am a eyewitness of Jumanji legacy at Solar Opposites (same scene, almost the same desk) and I tried to add that to Jumanji wiki. The change's being undone because of lack of confirming source. But what source can it be if I think I'm first who saw similarity of that scene in below-mentioned films? have I upload comparative screenshots?

I did not find any related information at Wikipedia rules/usability description about such situation cases.

Can you help pointing where to read to make it clear please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.82 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused? I don't remember doing any such revert to Jumanji or Solar Opposites, so I checked the edit history and I don't think I've ever edited those pages? I also checked your edit history and I haven't edited any page you've edited, it appears? Perhaps your IP is changing, or you aren't logged into your account...?

Sorry, I thought IP published as article title will help to aknowledge me. I mean your change meant here: talk

Yep, both not logged in and dynamically changed )

Anyway, I've taken a look at your edit history and the history of the Jumanji page. I can explain even though it very much was not me who is reverting you.

I'm not telling it was you I just asking your advice.

You've already been pointed to WP:RS policy, but please also take a look at WP:UGC. This is why we don't cite eBay or most personal blogs. It's also why we don't cite reddit, facebook, twitter, etc (except in certain very specific cases. In case you're wondering, this expensive eBay sale completely fails criteria 1 through 4).

Yep, I already saw a WP:UGC and read criterias right now and got it but... Will write below.

Here's a way to think about it. Could literally anyone on the internet have written / done this? If so, it isn't reliable. Was it written in a manner where it was edited, fact checked, and published by an organization with a reputation for doing this and being reliable? Then it's a WP:RS. That's why we can cite, say, the New York Times, but not a random blog.

Case is there's exists citing of Chicago Tribune, but... fact is... I thing you'd better look here: WP:RSN#ebay

eBay does not have this reputation, it should be clear. Let me ask you a question. How do you KNOW that this isn't, say, just one person who put up something for sale on eBay then bought it themselves on another account, to make their Jumanji collection SEEM more valuable, when really no money changed hands (it went from their bank account to eBay back to their bank account). Of course, that's a little silly (I don't truly suspect that happened), but.... it could have. That's why WP:UGC isn't okay. How do we know that what was sold was truly this Jumanji board and it wasn't a cover for something else? See, eBay can be used as a source about themselves. We could certainly cite this to say something like "Items sell on eBay for tens of thousands of dollars [1]", since it's making a claim about eBay. But outside eBay, it isn't saying anything reliably true. People get scammed on eBay all the time, items aren't what they claim, etc.

You read my mind ) Yep, I just assume it's not a fake because there was no any info claiming it was fake later. And... Who need to buy/sell to him/herself a thing worth $60800 to just make a fake news (blog?) article? However, yes, I think that quite possible. From other point of view I think ebay lot page link is initial source about fact something was sold and not about that 'something' description. However ok... Yes. That's connected.

Hope this helps! Leijurv (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it is. Thank you very much, but really I was asking you initially not about that case but about that one. Can you tell me how can I approve films scenes alikeness (similarity) if only prove is film scenes itself (and still no news exists about it)? Can it be done via uploading comparative screenshots to wiki?

Euff, it's better if you don't intersperse comments like that. The reason is that my signature is only at the end. Since it's on my talk page it's clear and I can piece it together, but don't get in that habit, I would advise :) It can get very complicated very fast on article talk pages.

One little thing, you said my opponent on the linked page, please remember WP:USTHEM.

I thing you'd better look here: I've looked there, looks like they're saying more or less the same things.

The combination of film imagery is definitely WP:SYNTH I fear. Now, we generally say that film plots are sourced only to the film itself. So, when writing a plot summary of a film, we don't need to find secondary sources for every plot point. However, when you combine from two different films to say this film is sort of like that one, I have to call that WP:SYNTH. Try and find a source that says those things look similar, otherwise it is probably WP:OR on your part. Leijurv (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't think about your signature. Tried to do it less complicated to understand. You are right. I won't do such way anymore. Have I 'fix' previous comments order to ordinary manner?

But how to call a editor with opposing POV (yep admit there's some edit clash happens, but don't moan he's a 'bad guy', later - @WP:RSN#ebay)? Isn't it an opponent?

I don't call him an enemy, nay I trying to be respectful calling him an opponent. Just... How have I call him that way? "Other discussion editor"? That's too long name, I think. Really don't know how to call...

Yep, you right but still I saw there some hint - combining Chicago tribune news article telling about lot description pointing to it's URL and after-sale archived ebay lot URL approving a sell as RS. And it not even WP:SYNTH because have connection with the ebay link itself that was used both in news article and corresponding archived after sale ebay lot page.

About films... How strange... So, wiki editors can't make any research and just looking for 'published somewhere' proves of facts?.. So sad... Looks like limited journalism, but with no possibility to study a "problem"(article).

Thank you.

85.238.102.245 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about fixing anything here, I understand what happened :)

The relevant part of WP:USTHEM is but when there is a dispute about content, no one should see themselves as being on a team. It might not be as applicable as I thought initially since it's more about teams than individual people, sorry about that. I was just trying to make a point about WP:AGF. For example, I personally try not to think of any editors as "opponents". By default, I believe that they are also making a good faith effort to build the encyclopedia. (Unless, of course, they've proven otherwise). Disagreeing on what sources are applicable is actually one of the most common things to disagree on, because it directly impacts what can be written in the article. I definitely see what you're saying about enemy vs opponent. Sometimes I'll just say "other editor". Specifically there I might write As you can see the other editor thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used. Or you can just write their actual username so that there is no confusion. I don't know of any options for a good single word that captures "editor I disagree with", that doesn't also convey opposing them. Because I like to think that we are really on the same side, the same team, of the people working to build, we just disagree on the best way to do it. :)

I see this potential source for you. I believe it is the same as the Chicago Tribune, but I'm unable to access that page without paying. (as I'm sure you'd understand, if we have a free vs paid source and they both say the exact same thing, the free one should be cited). That actually is quite a good source for this. There is a link to ebay there, but it appears to be dead? Not sure what's going on there. I think you should add in a citation to that article, it definitely would help. I would not be surprised if, checking back on the article in a few months / years, that passage will have been edited to just cite the Tribune article and not ebay itself.

So, wiki editors can't make any research and just looking for 'published somewhere' proves of facts?.. So sad... Correct. Perhaps take a look at WP:V, WP:TRUTH, WP:OR, and WP:RS to see why / learn more. Remember earlier I said Could literally anyone on the internet have written / done this? If so, it isn't reliable.? It's the same concept: there's nothing special about being able to edit Wikipedia, since absolutely anyone can do it. As WP:V says, Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

Also, you might want to consider making an account, see WP:REGISTER for why. It will probably clear up a lot of confusion. For example, if I replied to you previously, you wouldn't get the notification by now, since your IP has already changed since you first posted here! Wait how do I know it's still you??? :) Leijurv (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't you see a CT-Link? I don't see any restrictions here on that page while I'm not subscribed. However NY-link you provided just repeats told there and have same date. Even pagenames are equal and 'ct' probably means 'Chicago tribune', so then CT is initial source.

There is a link to ebay there, but it appears to be dead? Yep, but archived one is still online.

About registration: I know such cons but I still searching your and mine previous IP's pages by direct URLs. And, as you see I prefer to teach anything through examples

In pursuit of the correctness of the information displayed, Wikipedia is drowning in bureaucracy, because ones who add content have become much less than ones who are trying to control it, and they choose quite rude way to do it - simply canceling hours-long edits of those who are looking for relevant information and sources.

And no one controls the activities of these controllers, because no Wikipedia rule prohibits them to "simply undo" edits instead of revising them and bringing them to the appropriate form. And no one discusses the quality of the undo edits while attempting to understand whether it was necessary to undo the edit or whether it would be enough just to change some of the details in it.

Other words, there are much more “teachers” who are trying to roughly teach other editors “how to do it” than those who are interested in filling this resource with relevant information.

No, I do not want to be part of a project in which the "war of edits" and "opponent" is not a pronunciation mistake, but, alas, a harsh reality.

Over the past month, I made edits to only 2 articles of the project, but in the story with you, you explained what was wrong, and I corrected it accordingly (however sources still were complexed to become RS). In the Jumanji story - no one is trying to change anything in my edit, they are only going to cancel everything, although I initially spent at least 8 hours searching for the relevant sources, including archived ones. And why should I register? To "enjoy suffering"? ;) No thanks )

I'd rather just forget about filling this project with anything, because it does not make sense - this is not a resource with "collective mind" filling it, but simply a dictatorship with a huge number of "special services" in the form of such careless controllers who are trying to "guide" simple editors "on the true path" not by examples, but by humiliation ...

Here, no one understands that the provided Chicago Tribune news itself does not contain the final sale price and that my question was exactly about using the ebay resource exactly for confirmation of the fact of exact lot sale was successful, so then can't be a RS of confirmation item was really sold and its final price ($60800, both evented day later news was published, that is automated) itself, and not "information from the description published on ebay" (that is 'user-generated'), everyone just echoes "the information from the ebay page description cannot be used in the form of a RS" not even reading a topic where said "Does ebay... can be reliable source of fact something was sold...?".

Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible to me - it is in Wikipedia that all the "controlling editors" who speak out there are so stupid not even trying to understand a RS problem here exists and I asking about, or is it my "skis do not go".

There's situations where no clear information exists itself at some 'news' but 'true is out here' in COMMON pieces (part of overall news) of some news and sources exists that can (imho) be considered as RS because of repeatable both in news and other sources.

Modern news are quite brief to be contented enough with full event information (example - is Jumanji game book selling at ebay) so what to do about such event filling in Wikipedia? Not post? Even if sources complex (news one with others news is linking to) approves the fact itself?

I think Wikipedia lost it flexibility fearing bad news will be published there (came up with huge amount of unrelated to each other rules) however still having articles with unapproved information that just 'nobody cares' and nobody reads to examine because of leak of info (just to raise Wikipedia articles number when no alternative article view exists, even it's initially unapproved).

Wait how do I know it's still you??? :) By writing style and context ) And sure, by first part of IP (it's almost unchanged). With all aggregated, for sure )

And... They just deleted in full my Jumanji change. Again. Fill something more? Register? $) No way.

I even know what they will tell me (to confirm their undos) if I will continue: "CT article is @Redeye (Things to do) section and links to facebook that is user-generated blog so can't be RS any way" however there's no any info at news page itself about that's 'blog' or 'opinion' or 'newspaper did not checked that' which means that have to be true and checked by newspaper editors (about it's correctiveness) before publishing... And such justification of 'other editors' (who just cancelling my changes again and again) greatness will happens (I assume) indefinitely - instead of filling something to the resource they will just cancel everything again and again just 'because they can'.

85.238.102.245 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to your edit.

Hi Leijurv, I added that particular content to Paoli Dam's wiki page as it is one of her films. This particular film was not included in the list and can be verified from IMDb entry [1] or film details from other sources [2,3,4]. I would request you to reinstate the content, otherwise a legitimate filmography entry would be missing.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10574498/ [2] https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo-movie-review-pritam-d-guptas-insipid-film-suffers-from-clunky-writing-7231771.html [3] https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/bengali-features/the-actress-and-the-reporter-paoli-dam-and-ritwick-chakraborty-talk-shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo/ [4] https://www.moviebuff.com/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo

Thanks, AmiArnab (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@AmiArnab: Thanks for finding some sources! But, you don't need to demonstrate it to me. Unless you put the sources in your edit itself, someone reading your edit or the page won't know if they exist or not. We need to include them in the page itself, because of WP:V. By the WP:BLP policy, we have to have sources for just about everything we say about living people. All the other films in that list have a <ref>, or there is a reference elsewhere in the article. You can of course redo the edit (you don't need to ask me for permission), but I suggest that you cite those sources, otherwise it might be reverted again by someone else. See WP:CITE for how to do it. I would probably only cite the later three, and not the first one (IMDB), because IMDB is not considered reliable (see WP:CITEIMDB for why). Leijurv (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leijurv: Thanks for you reply and suggestions. I understand the issue. I will add the references (latter three) as you have suggested.