This is an archive of past discussions about User:Peterpie123rww. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Our Manual of style says: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated ... at the first occurrence after the lead." Please do not add excess links to a previously linked name or word. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Flag carrier, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. JetstreamerTalk20:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ilya Salmanzadeh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thanks for uploading File:Sia Bring Night.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Orphaned non-free image File:Sia - Courage to Change.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sia - Courage to Change.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regardless (Raye and Rudimental song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OCC.
Thanks for uploading File:Sabrina Carpenter - Skin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for your work on Sia articles recently. I'm not sure if you've had any experience promoting pages to Good article status or not, but you might consider expanding and nominating a Sia entry or two for Good article status, if interested. Either way, happy editing! I'm not sure I'll be able to see Music in a theater, unfortunately, but I'm looking forward to the soundtrack. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Another Believer Wow, thank you so much for your kind message! It means a lot from someone of your Wikipedia status. I have been trying my best and am learning new things everyday! I also won't be able to see Music in a cinema, which is a real shame, especially after the 5 odd years of waiting! Either way, I'm still very excited. Thanks for the invite to that, how would I join/what does it entail? Take care! Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"Joining" jus means adding your name to the list of participants and the page to your watchlist. These WikiProjects are pretty information and provides spaces for editors to collaborate and discuss specific topics. No pressure, just noticed you seem to like Sia. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Peterpie123rww, If you feel comfortable and believe the article is thorough, I say go for it! The worst case scenario is the article is not promoted, in which case you can always try again in the future. The album was released quite recently, though, so if there's another Sia song or album article you feel is also GA-worthy, you might consider one of those for your first nomination. Good luck when you're ready! ---Another Believer(Talk)15:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Selena Gomez - Baila Conmigo1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Music (2020 film) 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Music (2021 film) US poster.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Music (2021 film) US poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Music Australian Release Poster.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Music Australian Release Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The first paragraph of the intro should not have refs. Per WP:LEAD, the information there should all be expanded upon in the body of the article, and that is where the refs should go. Also, it is not a good idea to pile up four refs in a row. Usually one good ref is adequate, or two at the most, if the sentence makes two points that are referenced in separate refs. If a fact is so controversial that it needs more than two refs to verify it, then it probably needs more than one sentence to discuss it. By the way, please stop adding in that the role is Ziegler's first "starring role". Her role in The Book of Henry was arguably a starring role, and in any case, it certainly is not one of the key facts about this film. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
My recollection is that some of the material in the Critical Response section goes beyond what the review actually says, for example. Would you please review them over the next week to make sure that we haven't added opinions and analysis to what the reviews actually say, or just tangential fluff. The Slate review quotes a bunch of non-noteworthy stuff and should be trimmed, especially this: " more about Zu than the titular character." So what? Also, it veers from "she" to "they". I see that we are missing the positive reviews in "Irish Times" and "Screen-space" that are quoted at Rotten Tomatoes. I think the Variety review also ought to be mentioned, perhaps instead of one of the other less important ones.
Box office should go after the Critical Response section, or even lower. Box Office info is not very helpful because of COVID and the mostly video release. In any case, Box Office Mojo may continue to update the info.
In the "Portrayal of autism section" we write: "...as well as having made several comments in interviews leading up to the film's release which objectified autistic people.[82][83]. It's someone's opinion that Sia's comments objectified autistic people. Cut it, or say whose opinion it was.
[56][85][86] Again, do you need 3 refs? 1 or 2 should be able to verify the facts.
Third paragraph: "... and CommunicationFIRST, all made a joint press release". "all" is redundant. They "made a joint press release" means that they all did it.
"declaring the film to be dangerous after the "movie team [failed] to address recommendations to protect autistic people". Actually, the press release just says that "physical restraint" is dangerous, not the whole movie. This is a case where the headline is misleading. Also note that they did not see the film.
"Jane Harris, speaking for the National Autistic Society." It should be noted that this is a British society.
I think we should remove this clause: "were concerned by the suggestion that an autistic person wouldn’t be able to cope in the role of the autistic lead character". This shows that the writer does not know what they are talking about. First of all, Sia wrote the film with Ziegler in mind. Second, all the people who complained about the casting did not explain who in the community they thought could have been found to play the role of a 14-year-old who could both act the role and dance Heffington's complex choreography. Not a realistic complaint.
I think it's a mistake to engage with the IP on the artidle's Talk page. I think everyone should just acknowledge that they are an inveterate edit warrior and likely a sockpuppet. Note that the first thing they did was start an RfC, the Wikipedia equivalent of crying for your mommy when you don't get your way. New editors don't start RfC's but sockpuppets do. Anyhow, if you want to raise any of this on the Talk page, I will support you there.
I have been stalking the page for a couple of weeks. I recommend reading WP:AGF. Just because a new IP editor knows about RfC's doesn't mean they are a sock. Afootpluto (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:AGF clearly says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." In this case, the editor to whom we refer has demonstrated over and over that they do not edit in good faith, by edit warring from the get-go, editing against consensus and failing to wait for a consensus before reverting to their preferred version. Their behavior makes me confident that they are a sock, but even if not they do not deserve the assumption of good faith. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
A thanks
Welcome to wikipedia and thanks for all the great work you've done over multiple articles! You're a true asset.
I would like to drop you a quick note to please not repeatedly delete the same well-cited content more than once. If you find yourself removing well-sourced info you've previously removed, that means your change was controversial and you should use the talk page to explain your reason for the change, not just repeatedly reinstate your change. But again, welcome aboard and glad to have you!Feoffer (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Feoffer: Whilst I respect the well-sourced information, the lead section should be kept for select, concise information. Detail on the criticism is unnecessary; there is a whole section on this later in the main body of the page. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Here you reverted an edit you had previously reverted for being unsourced. The re-addition of it was challenging that claim (it was already sourced) while providing an additional source that more directly correlates. Reverting again with an edit summary simply saying "fix" obscures this act as perhaps simply being maintenance, and is not a reason for re-reverting. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Do feel free to show me where in the article it says that Sia "made several controversial comments about autistic people in interviews leading up to the film's release" - Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It is frankly quite obviously a paraphrasing of the situation.
Some more pertinent bits, although honestly stripping them out of context is rather counterproductive, which is why paraphrasing as opposed to quoting is more suitable.
Sia fought back, saying at one point, “Duh. I spent three f***ing years researching, I think that’s why I’m so f***ing bummed.”
Sia replied, “Maybe you’re just a bad actor.”
The included tweet from Marlee Matlin also provides some perspective:
Dear @Sia, With respect as a fellow artist, is this the kind of response you want people to see when discussing such an important topic such as people with Autism? Please don't be deaf to what they have to say. Marlee Matlin
And from the other two sources linked to that statement:
Many accused Sia of making assumptions about people with autism, and not searching for actors.
the Grammy nominee was accused of ableism.
She adds, "We are particularly alarmed that Sia has said it would be 'cruel' to cast a nonspeaking autistic person as an actor. It suggests that she thinks that autistic people don’t understand our own lives and aren’t the people who should be telling our own stories. When people tell stories about autism that cut out an autistic point of view, when storytellers view us as objects to tell inspirational stories about, or when autism is treated as a narrative device rather than as a disability community full of real people, the stories that are told fall flat, don’t speak to our reality, and are often harmful to us."
You could also even expand the statement to note her controversial comment about SW's:
People further criticized her for diminishing sex workers as “f***ing prostitutes.”
----
Furthermore, even if you don't agree that the sentence represents the sources appropriately, reverting it and simply labeling your edit as "fix" is not appropriate. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I think you'll find you are the one edit warring by continuously adding unsourced and biased content, violating WP:NPOV. "Paraphrasing" articles to fit your agenda is not allowed. I suggest you leave my talk page alone and stop with your ridiculous citing of countless Wikipedia policies. Oh, and start editing with your actual Wikipedia account or IP address, instead of sockpuppeting! Thank you. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The readdition of the content was by me once, and the other two times were by two separate people.
The content was, and is sourced, by multiple sources.
Paraphrasing is very much allowed in Wikipedia, and is consistently done. Your reversion did not always provide the reason for it, and the reason cited when provided was it being "unsourced", not that it did not represent the source well. Those are two very different claims.
Regardless, of if you feel that content belongs or not, you should not have violated the 3-revert rule. The page [WP:3RR] lists the very limited exemptions to the rule.
As for your accusation of sockpuppetting, then start a WP:SPI investigation. I am using my actual IP address, I have no wikipedia account. Please cease in simply using such accusations as uncivil attacks to excuse yourself from recourse.
As stated I don't intend to follow up this action, however if you continue in both incivility and edit warring, I will use this as evidence.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Music (2021 film)".The discussion is about the topic Music (film 2021).
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hi. For most alphabetically ordered lists on Wikipedia, we disregard a leading 'the' and alphabetise by the subsequent word. Please don't rearrange The Arts Desk and The Independent under 'T' when the reviews were correctly ordered prior. Thanks. Ss11212:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Earlier you created Wild West (Central Cee album), but as you well know, it's a mixtape. Per WP:ALBUMDAB, if an album is a mixtape, we disambiguate with "(mixtape)" and not "(album)". So this should have been created at the pre-existing Wild West (mixtape). If you are unwilling to expand someone else's redirect, then we do not just simply create it at an incorrect namespace and wait for it to be moved. You can start it as a draft and request it be moved. This is a note for the future. Thank you. Also, please always include the alt= parameter where an image is even if it's not filled out per MOS:ACCESS, and all prose sections generally go before a track listing on an album-related article. Ss11200:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sia Furler. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization Talk 15:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
When you add information to Wikipedia articles, please cite your source where you found the information. See WP:V. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Music (2021 film), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever(talk) 00:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_US_poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_US_poster.jpg){kind=link}
