User talk:Schazjmd/Archive 2

Thank you for Sunnyvale!

Thank you for your comments and references on Toddst1's talk page!

My Apologies

You recently edited Sir Ralph Halpern's Wikipedia page. Destructive editing is certainly incorrect, however, his son is a wretched human being and also happens to be my best friend's boyfriend. I won't be settling personal issues on Wikipedia again because I understand the effects of destructive editing, but I also will not regret my actions. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:8300:66F0:8958:D5FE:D41A:3FF9 (talk • contribs) November 15, 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 Then the added mystery of an editor claiming an historical article was "outdated"!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)

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)

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)

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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ke6jjj, NASA is a verified account, I can use it. Thanks for your help! Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

NedFausa, I use tweetdeck and a search on "wikipedia", what's your method? Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Greetings

Thought I’d say hi since were are discussing. Always nice to meet a fellow armed forces veteran. I was over with my star ranker once to your space operations centre in Colorado, back in the past, and with him for a few exchange talks (but must admit, outside of when I was on deployment in Baghdad, didn’t have much contact with the US armed forces - expect maybe for seeing them do things on screens at Joint Operations). As you can expect, what with my star ranker being a Service Chief, I’ve had a few posting where all I did was minutes, papers, etc. I can only say what is my knowledge, I can’t comment on other armed forces quirks, as it is outside my wheelhouse - but that is our service writing standard and how it is used domestically.

Did you ever get over to Australia during your time? Apparently very popular posting so I understand it is very competitive - I did meet some nice Marines out at the Embassy once, they were loving it here. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kangaresearch, I never made it to Australia. You're right, there's lots of competition to get stationed there. But I did get to Italy, England, and Iceland, all great bases. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not me, I mostly got to stay back home with the in-tray lol, my US trip was the only non-operational duty trip (and I came back with the unwelcome gift of swine flu - sad face). All my other overseas gigs were to places nobody wants to visit (and were certainly not tourist destinations) - money was good but that was it. The delights of DFAC dining, mortars, IEDs, and months with 30 farting burping officers in one large room (it did have water views though lol, if you went to the roof, and the locals were resting) were lost on me. I did encounter my first military mayor though, when I was in Baghdad, that was something novel - I worked pretty closely with COL Tracey (they had much nicer digs than ours) most of that deployment. Veterans are never short a war story or two eh. Kangaresearch (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

By the by, I did a little research (given us military and civilian practice is not my expertise and as we don’t even have the same English, drawing inferences from our side to yours would be a bit risky) out of interest and I am reliably informed that the us government - included the armed forces - follow the Chicago Manual of Style for this and other things. Did a quick check seems to match. Basically the US only uppercase when used with a person’s name, otherwise lowercase. One of those colour / color - honour / honor things I guess. Kangaresearch (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch, MOS:MILTERMS might have been based on Chicago, I'm not sure...wasn't around here when most of these rules came into being. Schazjmd (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not something I ever gave any thought to, as I didn’t have to I guess, but an interesting factoid. And while US and Australian forces carry out joint operations more and more now, I guess it is not high up on the list there either, but I know sometimes we can have very very different SOPs from each other, even if some things share some commonalities. At least we share more common platforms now, I guess, than we used to. Kangaresearch (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Inadvertent pings

Sorry if you got a ping that I mentioned you, seems to be a glitch in the method I used to archive conversations from my talk page (which I won't be using again). Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bass IP

That IP is clearly closely connected to Bass somehow.Seven Pandas (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Seven Pandas, I think you're right. No problem as long as everything is properly sourced. Schazjmd (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How Dense are you?

It’s a Twitter account linking to a video by an established institution where the author herself is speaking. Change it back or I’ll have your moderator trinket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir666 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Abattoir666, please read WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

How to update education?

I don't have a citation for a awarded degree. I included a citation to the Annual. What are we supposed to use?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthman68 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Truthman68, if we don't have a reliable source for information, we don't include it in an article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Any talk page watchers?

If so, I'd really appreciate experienced editors weighing in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Haglund (real estate) because to me it seems such a gray area in notability and I really don't know what the right call is on it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my dilemma that "You can't add or fix pings"

Schazjmd, thanks for the info about pinging. The documentation is "Template:Reply to,", of course; if I were to write the documentation, that is exactly what I would have called it probably, maybe.

A "(talk page watcher)", Ha Ha! I like to watch too, but mostly I am not sure where would be a good place to look.

I guess I could have replied to you by doing a notification to you from a post on Doug's page. I will try that.

I will take you up on the offer to ask you questions.

About my Talk page, it is a mess. Until recently I didn't know I had anywhere else to save things on Wikipedia. So everything I needed to save for reference and such I put there and it grew and it grew. Yes, archiving sounds like a good thing to do, I'll check with you late on that.

But first I need to get up to speed on "replying to" methodology.

Thank you very much.

Osomite ^hablemos 20:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Late apologies

Hello Schazjmd, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made that were unsourced many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue my quest to productive edits. Happy editing!Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, an apology isn't needed, but thank you for taking the time to offer it. Schazjmd (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Select edits

To be honest Schazjmd, it seems like wikipedia only requires changes to be backed up with a citation to a reliable source when the person or group is of a certain political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqwert777 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Aqwert777, I presume you're referring to this revert. Per WP:BLP, any controversial claims about a living person must have a solid source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

My cheer wiki Suggestion.

Did you read my cheer wiki talk? I was wondering if we could have ever possibly do what I asked? MerlinLionHeart (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MerlinLionHeart, thanks for bringing that to my attention, I didn't notice your comment there. I've replied on the article's Talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I replied again on the “Cheerleading” article Talk page but I don’t know if it was published. So when ever you get the chance please check it out. MerlinLionHeart (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

MerlinLionHeart, there is no new comment from you on Talk:Cheerleading. Schazjmd (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Image

Can you delete this [1]? I uploaded the wrong image. Zoe1013 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoe1013, sorry, I don't have that power. Only administrators can delete files. You can replace the content on that page with {{db-author}}, and an administrator should delete it fairly quickly, then you can upload the correct image. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. I think I will just keep the image. Is it against copyright violation if I took a picture of my library book? Zoe1013 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The earlier copyright violation was claiming it as your own work. If this file uses the non-free content rationale (as it appears to do), it can be used in that book's article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(adding a @Zoe1013: just in case you're not watching the page) Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC) UTC)

Then in the future I can take picture of library book cover and upload it to Wikipedia as long as I don’t claim it as my own. Zoe1013 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoe1013, as long as they meet the WP:Non-free use rationale guideline and the upload provides a proper non-free-use rationale, yes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to use this image: [2]? I took a picture of my library book. Is that allowed? Zoe1013 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoe1013, this second image is better quality than the photo you took. Another editor might replace the photo in the article with an image like that. Schazjmd (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The second image is from the source. [3] Can I take the image from the source? Is that copyright violation to use the library book cover or the source? Zoe1013 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoe1013, you can upload the source image using non-free-use rationale for a book cover to be used in the article about that book. Schazjmd (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Reduce size of image

How do you reduce the size of image? This edit says I need to reduce the size of image. You can’t make image smaller. So I have asked for the image to be deleted because the image can’t be reduced. Zoe1013 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoe1013, I'm not an expert at images, but the notice itself tells you that a bot will take care of it in about 24 hours. The notice is there to notify the bot to fix it. Revert your deletion tag and put the size notice back. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Already reverted myself. So a bot will make the image smaller? How? I don’t know how to do it. How come he can? Zoe1013 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoe1013, bots are software programs that perform defined tasks. I don't know how the program works, it just does. Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Authentication for RICO Edits

We spent five years researching Paul Rico and the surrounding controversies. We researched the transcripts of congressional hearings, other testimony, and conducted hundreds of interviews of witnesses. Joe Wolfinger and I are both retired special agents of the FBI and licensed attorneys and have independent sources for every fact. If it will help, we can include many additional footnotes for each fact (independent of our book). The page that exists is very poorly sourced and completely unreliable (e.g., some purported "FBI mugshot?" Not possible since Rico was never arrested or charged by the FBI. Other sources include "Reader's Digest," etc.). We are not experts in Wikipedia and are interested only in getting this information corrected. We are open to any suggestions you might have.Chriskerresq (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Chriskerresq, what you need to do is begin a discussion at Talk:Paul Rico. Explain the changes that you want to make to the article and the sources for the information. By discussing with other editors interested in that topic, you can get consensus for adding the new information to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Haglund Foundation Twitter account

Hi there,

Although the Haglund Foundation's Twitter account does not bear a verified checkmark from Twitter, it is linked from the footer of the Haglund Foundation's official home page, which is already included as an external link in Carl Haglund (real estate). I think it's reasonable to conclude that it is the official account of the foundation. Per WP:BLPSPS, is it justified to include information sourced to the foundation's Twitter account?

White 720 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

White 720, I don't agree that it's WP:DUE even under WP:BLPSPS. So what if they started a petition about something? Unless independent sources have taken note of it and given it coverage, it's just a self-serving claim. It's an encyclopedia article about Haglund, not a PR vehicle for his foundation. Schazjmd (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Conversation on Talk:Carl Haglund

Abdala Bucaram Jr.

I disagree with the removal of my edit. It simply stated that there was an order for his detention and that he was being investigated. Your reason for deleting stated he had been detained but no charges filed. I never said any charges had been filed.skmply that he was being investigated which is completely true and verifiable. Could you also please support the claim that he was detained? He fled the country under suspicious circumstances, while travel was prohibited, before he could be detained. TruthDoesMatter2020 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TruthDoesMatter2020, I was reviewing pending edits and felt that there is a question whether it should be included in a WP:BLP. As I said on my edit summary, please discuss on the article talk page and get consensus from other editors on whether the information should be mentioned in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Theories entry

Nice work with the Cynical Theories entry. I see that someone drafted an entry for Helen Pluckrose, which was not deleted but parked on account her lack of "notability." I don't quite agree--there are lots of authors with only one big book to their credit who yet have a wiki entry. At the same time, it wasn't as well written a job as yours here. You did a nice job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigetastic (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nigetastic, thank you! And I really appreciate you adding that review to the article, I hadn't seen that one. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd Happy to help. I'll be curious to see how the article evolves.

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ex,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. You may already be aware of this and have declined to participate, but, if not, here's an invitation.​

Best regards, Nigetastic (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Ok, I understood... Greetings.--Tenan (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tenan, it's a learning curve. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops, my bad!

Thanks for moving those sandboxes to my userspace. The Irate Communist (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Irate Communist, not a problem, we all sometimes create stuff in the wrong space. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Victoria Davies Randle

Hello.

I saw that you put a tag on this page. I apologize for my tardy editing. I've now altered the content quite extensively. Could you please check to see whether it's up to code now? I wouldn't want to unilaterally remove the tag.

Thanks in advance.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

O.ominirabluejack, the article still uses too much wording from another source. Articles need to be written in your own words, summarizing what reliable sources say; not pasting their words. You can see the result of the comparison here. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

O.ominirabluejack, I've gone ahead and removed the tag for now, but please rewrite the remaining copyright violations as soon as possible, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Schazjmd... I'll try again. O.ominirabluejack (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

O.ominirabluejack, thanks for working on it. I've put a tag on so an admin can hide the versions that contained the copyrighted text; don't worry, your most recent version of the article will remain. Schazjmd (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Health psychology and clarity

Thank you for working on the issue roiling the health psychology entry by freezing the page and later prompting me to lay out the different, relevant quotations from the assorted publications. Rounding up the quotations took a little time. But doing so provided clarity. Iss246 (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Iss246, I'm glad it was helpful! I'm hoping editors from the med/psych wikiprojects engage in the discussion so we can get a solid result one way or another. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Puya (Meitei texts). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Puya (Meitei texts). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. noq (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Noq, I merely moved the article to fix the title, please let the actual article creator know of the CSD nomination, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I originally tagged the original name just as you moved it. They have been informed. noq (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Noq, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

I had difficulties because I'm new help me please 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Gremista.32, sure, what can I help you with? Schazjmd (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Castile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_(Roman_province) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius Help me please ? --👀Gremista.32 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gremista.32, the problem is that you're adding references to sources that don't actually support the content where you're citing them, and they aren't necessarily even reliable sources. For example, in Eleanor of Castile, you added a reference to an ad for a book about Eleanor. In Egypt (Roman province), you put a reference to a page about Egypt that says nothing about the actual content, which is An army of 4,000 Arabs led by Amr Ibn Al-Aas was sent by the Caliph Umar, successor to Muhammad, to spread Islamic rule to the west. Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639,

In articles, references support specific content. If I write Murrow gave a speech in 1971 that was highly acclaimed., I would also add a reference that specifically mentions the speech and how it was received. See how that works? Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gremista.32, I took a look at your recent edits. In this edit, you cited a post on a forum. User-generated content, such as forums, Reddit, blogs, etc, are not reliable sources. Please read Reliable sources to learn more about suitable sources for article content. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I use Portuguese Wikipedia to search for references 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gremista.32, you have to be careful doing that. Each language Wikipedia project has its own rules and policies, and just because something is allowed on another Wikipedia doesn't mean it's okay on the English one. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Quotes

Hi Schazjmd, love the quotes that head your talk page. I need to make a note of them somewhere. Happy St Crispin's Day, MSgt. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"We happy few", eh Acad Ronin? Schazjmd (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. noq (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Crash (fabric)

Sir, you were there on the subject[[4]]. I have tried it to improve with recent edits[[5]]. kindly see and comment.Thanks and Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, thanks for addressing the when question! Schazjmd (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Wood at Flower Hill

Harry Loucks was one of the key figures in Rolling Wood's development. Loucks (along with his father) were major realtors and developers on Long Island during this time, and did work in places like Brookville New York, Syosset, New York, and Roslyn Estates, New York. I have added this information to the article.

Please keep in mind that this article is very new. It was started roughly 24 hours ago (as of the time I am posting this). I am expanding it and will continue to do so. LINYperson615 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

LINYperson615, I don't think that information adds any value to the question of notability of the neighborhood. But it's possible that other editors won't agree with me; that's the purpose of the article discussion. It will run for 7 days. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, LINYperson615, please read the notability guideline that I cite in my nomination: WP:GEOFEAT. It details the notability requirements for this type of article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

SchazjmdI did, and I just added more information. Another thing about this subdivision is that the original 14 homes were all of unique designs (mentioned in source 1). Additionally (and I am about to add this in), the Guggenheims were very prominent landowners on this part of Long Island during this time period. They made their fortune through mining, and Edmond was a relative of Solomon R. Guggenheim (as in the museum); please see the Guggenheim family article for more information on the family. LINYperson615 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

LINYperson615, but the Guggenheims have nothing to do with the subject of the article, except for having been previous owners of the land. Please understand that I'm not saying it's a bad article; you did a very good job with it. My contention is that the subject of the article isn't notable. Anyway, please feel free to continue improving the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for my harsh tone earlier in the Rolling Wood article. I agree, and moved the information into the main article for the village (it makes more sense that way; you are right with how it doesn't make sense for them to be put in separate articles). Again, my sincerest apologies.LINYperson615 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  LINYperson615, I didn't think you were being harsh at all, just defending your work. No worries. Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Magical1031a

Hi Schazjmd, if I did anything inappropriate, please let me know. I just thought that removing the redirect was the best way to handle it. They also copied the article's talk page content to their talk page so I deleted that as well. S0091 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

S0091, no, I don't think you did anything wrong at all! I appreciate you deleting the inappropriate content there, I was just going to let an obviously-NOT-new editor clean up after themselves. But apparently we both wandered into a sock drawer. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dang socks! S0091 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

​ If we encounter similar behavior in the future, it's related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman (fyi). Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Thanks for the information, Schazjmd. S0091 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

N. K. Jemisin

Daveburstein (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks for accepting I made an honest mistake on the Jemisin picture. I think livelier pictures would be better, but that's not the community decision. I've since heard from Nora she likes the old picture, even if it doesn't do her justice.

Daveburstein, not a problem. There can be quite a learning curve on Wikipedia, and to me it looks like you are trying to learn which is a good thing. (That photo you added was truly ridiculous though!) Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

TNS famous folks

The HTTP link you gave, even though it has "public" in the name, is not actually publicly accessible. Can you find any way to provide a link that *is* accessible? Finney1234 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Finney1234, I took the ref from Andrew York's article. I had no problems accessing the webpage. Maybe try a different browser? Schazjmd (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Actually, it works with either of my browsers, I just clicked something incorrectly (or copied and pasted incorrectly). Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Finney1234, oh good, problem solved! Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, well, since the linked worked properly in the first place, I'm not sure what "problem" got "solved" :-). Finney1234 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Nice work beating me to the punch on updating Ben Bova's article! Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie891! And thanks again for catching my mistake in not adding the date to the lead sentence properly. Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ben Bova

On 1 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ben Bova, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dumelow (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Calligrapher

Hello,

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not really certain on how to use all features. However, this user is going around on Twelver Shia Imams and stating that they are a certain denomination with a heavily one-sided view with a single citation from medium.com and I am trying to revert the pages back to a neutral viewpoint. They keep trying to engage in a edit war with me and I was hoping you'd be able to investigate this to allow me to revert the pages back to a neutral standing point with the edits that I am doing to his changes, thank you. Butene (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Butene, I explained to the editor that Medium is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, and they have agreed to revert their edits. If they don't revert the edits that are sourced to Medium in a reasonable amount of time, feel free to to do so. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Schazjmd, I've already done the edits before him and he has done slight grammatically incorrect changes to appear as if he's done the changes themselves although I have now fixed this, if they keep editing articles with unreliable references I will contact you again about this, thank you. Butene (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Butene

Hi! I feel sorry for adding Medium (the non reliable website) links, but User:Butene is continuously engaging in the Edit war on Ja'far al-Sadiq. CalligrapherAR (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The topic has been handed over to Cplakidas for now. Butene (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

CalligrapherAR, to someone who is unfamiliar with the history of Islam (me), your edits look like you tried adding content with an unreliable source in order to claim that certain people were Sunni as well as (or instead of?) Shi'a, and when that got stopped, you switched to creating categories that you apply to the articles to associate them with Sunni Islam. When other editors object to the changes by reverting your edits, rather than discuss it with them on the article talk pages, you add the content again.

You've made a large number of changes in a short period of time to many articles, and seeing how many of your edits have been reverted, I suspect that your editing might be considered disruptive. It would not surprise me to see your editing eventually under discussion on one of the administrative noticeboards. I've advised you to discuss with other editors but you don't. I hope you can learn how to cooperate with other editors and how to contribute in a productive manner.

Regarding Ja'far al-Sadiq, Butene has made one revert of your edits today (consecutive reverts uninterrupted by other edits count as one revert in the context of WP:EW). Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sununu setting NH record in 2020

It's not a claim, it's a fact. If a ref is needed, I'll get one. Thanks. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Royal Autumn Crest, feel free to add it back to the article when accompanied by a reliable source. The source needs to support that he was the first candidate ever in NH to do so, not that he got that many votes. Schazjmd (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Found it, adding now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, please let me know if I can help you with something else in the future. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

About titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, I started to comment there, but I feel my comment might not be helpful to the overall discussion. This is what I started to add there:

"Bookku notified me of this discussion (with neutral language and because I participated in this RFC), but I can't figure out what this discussion is about. It seems to consist of a lot of vague, hand-waving accusations sprinkled with various calls to fallacies by Bookku and other editors trying to guess what Bookku means. None of the guesses are confirmed to be the problem; instead, Bookku deflects all attempts to get specific. This discussion is simply too vague and ill-defined to be productive."

I apologize if that sounds harsh, Bookku; it's not personal against you, only my honest assessment of the discussion to this point. If you see any useful criticism in my comments, perhaps it might help you steer the discussion onto a more productive path. If nothing I said rings true for you, so be it; I wish you well in whatever you're trying to achieve. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello once again, I went through your and other replies up till now and added following mid discussion synopses / review as my reply there. May be we won't agree but it might help better in understanding each other's point of views better.

• Mid discussion synopsis:

Discussion is moved ahead enough, so for benefit of some one joining reading discussion late; It was argued I have not specific instances of breach or that not many instances exist; many examples of breach were cited when I inquired @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Which (all) Wikipedia articles still retain Honorifics?.

The next argument forwarded is WP:COMMONNAME trumps MOS:HONORIFIC, but I have not been explained 2 aspects in this argument.

1) How WP:COMMONNAME itself is not a fallacy of appeal to popularity ( common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief, appeal to the majority)

2) What is happening is MOS:HONORIFIC does not cite any 'statement of purpose' or 'statement of principle' or 'statement of value' So not only commitment to 'purpose', 'principle', value' gets diluted average people do not realize excuse of WP:COMMONNAME defeats 'purpose', 'principle', value' behind not having HONORIFIC in Wikipedia article;

3) and WP:COMMONNAME becomes a tool of validating subjectivity and systemic bias towards those who could not find enough English language reliable sources to prove their usage of honorific is as much WP:COMMONNAME in their own language and people.

4) Another argument forwarded is WP:IAR 'Wikipedia has no firm rules'; but it is not acknowledged same argument adds subjectivity, arbitrariness and leads to systemic bias.

To sum up, I repeat, "What is happening is MOS:HONORIFIC does not cite any 'statement of purpose' or 'statement of principle' or 'statement of value' So not only commitment to 'purpose', 'principle', value' gets diluted average people do not realize excuse of WP:COMMONNAME defeats 'purpose', 'principle', value' behind not having HONORIFIC in Wikipedia article"

Thanks Bookku (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: dead links

Hello there! I saw your post on my talk page. While the link was technically saved in the wayback machine, when I clicked on it, it was just an archive of the 404 page. I'm unsure if that was an error on my end or not, but I wanted to let you know that I really try to make sure dead links haven't been archived anywhere else. Sorry about the confusion --Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Vaporwaveboyfriend, no problem, I just wanted to be sure you knew about it. (When a archive capture is 404 or redirect, try earlier dates.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

I'll take a look to see if the quotes can be trimmed and I expect that will be very doable. I've got to get on the road and I don't know if I'll be able to get back to a computer today, but thanks for the input. Activist (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Activist, sounds good. Could you also explain why you reverted my edit in which I added the citation template to a ref? Per WP:CITEVAR, when an article is primarily using a specific form of reference, we're encouraged to format refs in that same form. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Schazjmd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activist (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I can explain. Activist (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Tom Theo Klemesrud

You recently deleted my contribution for this page in the writings section, saying the text of this court filing was not reliable. The filed declaration came from attorney Richard Horning and it is ok to contact and verify with him. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/professionals/h/horning-richard-allan

Also Shari Steele at EFF can verify it. The case and file was on the EFF server, but was accidently destroyed. https://www.eff.org/about/staff/shari-steele Seen here on BBC-2 ... //youtu.be/b6KM27TUsvM?t=367

The declaration is also on Pacer of course. The case is published. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc , No. 95-20091 RHW, 1995 Comp. Ind. L. Rptr. 20214, 20292, 20357, 20380, 20435 (N.D.Cal. 1995), 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Ca. 1995) 71.29.113.108 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC) 71.29.113.108 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say the text wasn't reliable; I said a file on google docs is not reliable. Any file, genuine or manipulated, can be created and uploaded there. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Schazjmd. You have new messages at FormalDude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

00:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki of Functions followup

Hi there, I'm a researcher for the Wikilambda project. Last month we held a naming contest and I'm following up with those who voted to see if you might be willing to provide some feedback to help guide the project.

This would be a 45 minute conversation about your past experience with other Wikimedia projects and thoughts about the future of this new initiative. I'm hoping to gather a wide range of perspectives so I'd be interested in your opinion regardless of whether you plan to have further involvement.

As a way of saying thanks, the research team is offering a $35 gift card (in your local currency) for participation. We could chat by phone or through a website for audio conferencing.

If you're interested just pick a time slot from this calendar link:
https://wikilambda-voter.youcanbook.me

Hope to hear from you soon!

// jeff (design researcher) (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Schazjmd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

2011 Bach Divorce

What do you need for proof of Richard’s divorce from Sabryna in 2011?

The dissolution is in the Washington, Kings County online docket search, but how do I cite this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A search of King County court records gives me the following divorce filings by the Bachs and the summaries:

• 15-3-03182-5 10/8/2015 settled by parties/dismissal without prejudice
• 10-3-08940-7 12/30/2010 settled by parties
• 10-3-05920-6 8/6/2010 dismissal without trial

I found several newspaper articles after his 2012 accident referring to Sabryna as his ex-wife and several referring to her as his wife, so those are of no help.

If there's a filing I didn't find that clearly resulted in a decree of dissolution, you could cite it like this: <ref>King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington; case number xx-x-xxxxx-x, decree of dissolution issued (date)</ref>.

Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also - it shouldn't be only in the infobox, the article should also be updated (when you have a source). Schazjmd (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In his book about his crash and recovery, Illusions 2, he writes that Sabryna is his ex wife at the time of the crash. He also wrote on his website, richardbach.com, now offline, that he was single and looking for a new mate both before and after the crash.

One of the 2010 filings was finalized in 2011, I know this personally, but I don’t understand the court docket lingo well enough to know which one. He remarried Sabryna in December 2014, but then filed for divorce in 2015, after meeting me, I am his fourth wife. That divorce was withdrawn, but he filed again in 2018, and that one was finalized November 2020. Richard and I married right after that. I have those divorce papers, but obviously don’t wish to make them public.

I think a good faith edit for the 2011 divorce should be allowed. You can confirm in his book that he was divorced at the time of the crash. I have backups of his website, I could personally send you an entry clearly indicating he is single if that helps you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, personal knowledge isn't an acceptable source. I know that's frustrating, but Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable, especially in biographies of living people. His website is archived through July 2018.[6] It's likely that archive.org has a cached copy of the post you're referring to, if you know the old URL. Whether it would suffice depends on what it says. Schazjmd (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If you go here and search for Sabryna Bach, you will see their December 2014 marriage license, their second marriage:

https://www.sanjuanco.com/171/Recorded-Document-Search

And if you look at the quit claim deed from this month at the top, you can see Sabryna is once again a “former spouse.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Turns out you can easily find our marriage license this way as well, but I do not wish to go public with our marriage at this time.... Anyway, he is definitely not married to Sabryna any longer, and seeing her listed as his current wife is bothersome to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

September 29, 2014 is one entry where Richard explicitly states on his website that he is single and seeking a mate. But, he talks about this a lot starting with his entries prior to the crash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've requested the book from the library, I'll see if that's helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at the book, at best, he says, “ There by the bed was the woman I knew, she was my wife? No.” And, “ She’s my wife, I thought. Can’t remember her name. Not my wife.”

Richard wants to correct this, is there something he can do to provide proof he is divorced from her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He's a famous author, maybe he can arrange an interview with a newspaper or magazine in which he discusses his various marital statuses? Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have the final certificate of dissolution from the state of Washington, it cites the 10-3-05920-6 court file number as the finalized divorce case, it was finalized on April 1, 2011. There is nothing in that docket that indicates the divorce was not completed, in fact it clearly indicates it was completed (final facts and findings means completion). There was the confusion in that they had two divorce filings in the courts at the same time, and so one must have been nullified. But the official dissolution certificate says the 10-3-05920-6 is the finalized one. There was no trial, the parties agreed to a separation agreement, so no trial needed.

I will cite that court docket as my reference. I can scan and upload the dissolution certificate, if you could give me some pointers as to how to do so.

Thanks for all your help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't know the rules or procedures for uploading documents. Just use the example <ref>King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington; case number xx-x-xxxxx-x, decree of dissolution issued (date)</ref> for the ref. Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I am adding in my marriage to Richard. I put the reference in the body this time. Let me know if you have a problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk • contribs)

No problem. When I checked it, I just now noticed how recent it was...felicitations on your marriage! Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. An administrator pointed out that a form like that, containing so much personal information, shouldn't be exposed in a wikipedia article. Did you two make a marriage announcement in any of the local papers that we could use as a reference? Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we didn’t. That’s okay, I am pretty on the fence about being public about the marriage, so I am okay to keep it off the page. Maybe someday later, when we have something with less personal information on it.

Thanks, Schazjmd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.64 (talk • contribs)

Glad to help, let me know if you need assistance in the future. Schazjmd (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Chicago circulation wars

On 22 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chicago circulation wars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that about 27 men and newsboys were killed in the Chicago circulation wars in the early 1900s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chicago circulation wars. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chicago circulation wars), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Expedite Request

I wrote an article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky It needs to be approved urgently so I can seek good article status. I cannot seek good article status until it gets approved. I may be wrong but I need to seek good article status before seeking featured article status. Either way it needs to be expedited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs)

Compel Editors

I need to compel editors to work on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mikhail_Lebedev_(neuroscientist). I am having difficulty getting editors to participate without a formal command from Wikipedia. Can you please order a list of world renowned editors to help these pages so that they can be superb by the end of the weekend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs)

BLP Policies and Sources

I've created a Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements request on poorly sourced content in Talk:Anima_Anandkumar that you were active in editing in December as well. In case you'd like to weigh in. BR, Tunkki-1970 (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tunkki-1970, thanks for letting me know, I had unwatched that article. I've responded on the Talk page of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed on the comments. Tunkki-1970 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a compliment on the quotes on your page

I love the selection of quotes on your page! Also, thanks for your help. StarTigerJLN (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you! Avishai11 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm proud of our discussion/collaboration and the consensus edit it produced -- it's better than the version I initially suggested. I hope we meet again on here. Gershonmk (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Providing feedback/edits on new article draft

Hello Schazjmd,

I hope this message finds you well. I have been working on a new article about Bay Area illustrator/artist Bill Russell; Draft:Bill Russell (illustrator). The article is currently pending approval, but I would really like some experienced feedback from someone like yourself as to what I could do to make the page better. If you have time to do this and this is in your wheelhouse, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you. --Flewisss (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Flewisss, I took a look at the draft. The problem you're facing isn't the quality of the article, it's the notability of the topic. The reviewers approve articles that they can be reasonably confident would survive at article for deletion discussions. Russell doesn't meet the notability requirements of artists, so you must rely on general notability. That requires multiple, independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic. There are five good long articles about Russell sourced in the article, however they're all from minor local newspapers. When an article subject only has local coverage, they don't often survive AFD. What your article needs is one or two solid articles about Russell in non-local (preferably national) publications. I did a few searches; unfortunately, he has the same name as several much more famous individuals and that makes it harder. I hope this helps! Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Scott J. Shapiro

Hello

Does it have to be controversial in order to appear in a wikipedia page? I would think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedits1900 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikiedits1900, you added content to Scott J. Shapiro that said he made a controversial tweet. You need an independent reliable source that supports the claim that the tweet was controversial. (Also, talk page comments always go at the bottom, and always sign your comments by typing four tildes). Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikiedits1900, Schazjmd is absolutely correct. Please acquaint yourself with the guidelines, and particularly with WP:BLP. You are essentially making up a controversy to put in one of our articles. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Effects of War: Capitalism

I have brought up the topic of removing effects of war from the capitalism page for the reasons listed in my edit. The section as is and even the topic heading itself appear to be fairly nonsensical to the topic of explaining capitalism. I would implore you to go over the section with your own eyes. It has some interesting facts, without citation, though it does not appear to offer relative information. Maybe I am reading it wrong though. TauGuys (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

TauGuys, I see that you've begun two discussions on Talk:Capitalism. Now you have to wait for other editors to weigh in on the points that you raised. Give it a few weeks. Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Vettori

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi pal! Daniel in Islam/Arabic is Daniyal دانيال Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Styy4fvtd, there is no reason to add a person's name in another language when they have no connection to that language. If your intent is to add the Arabic version of every person's name to their biographies, don't. That's disruptive. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok dear ☹ Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, Daniel in Arabic is also Danial Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Adam in Arabic is Adam Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Styy4fvtd, Daniel Vettori is a New Zealander. How his name is translated into other languages is not relevant to his article. Also, it is overly familiar to address strangers as "dear", please don't do that. Schazjmd (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ادم Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What about Danial. Danial is the Arabic name of Daniel pal Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok ☹ Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Adam in Arabic is Adam Sarah in Arabic is Sarah Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Adam in Arabic is Adam Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sarah in Arabic is Sarah Styy4fvtd (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ya beat me to it!

I rejected those pending edits on the Meriwether Lewis page, but you beat me to the punch on the user's Talk page. Thanks for keeping an eye on things—and for being the faster typist! Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

UncleBubba, yeah, I think we were both reviewing the pending edits at the same time. I got distracted comparing the text to the source (clear copyvio) and by the time I got back to the article, you'd already reverted. Nice work! Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for interview

Hello there!

My name is AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC), and I recently joined The Wikipedia Library team to help with design work. I noticed you've been very generous with your input to our team so I thought I would reach out! I'm writing to invite you to participate in an interview study that I'm currently conducting.

This would involve us meeting via Google meets where I will ask you a few questions and then have you test a prototype with me. For the interview, I'd be recording your screen as well as audio. The purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of who is using The Wikipedia Library for the purposes of making the right improvements!

If you're interested, please email me at avardhana@wikimedia.org, and I'll send a copy of the privacy statement to you. If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them.

Thank you, Aishwarya

Mangolia677

That user has targeted me and all of my edit’s in a malicious way. Going as far as to delete vital information from said articles he is going after, all pertaining to myself. He is not trying to help. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, when you make an edit and it is reverted, you're supposed to begin a discussion on the article's Talk page and reach consensus about the disputed edit. You are edit warring. That will get you blocked. Learn how to discuss issues with other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I 100% respect that and I will always do that. I felt it was different in this case & scenario since this user went through multiple of my edits to make changes to the articles themselves in non constructive ways. He was doing it because he has it out for me personally. I only want to add vital information and make it easy for readers & students to access & gain all the knowledge they need right from the best site on the web Wikipedia. I even extended him WikiLove to no avail. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, when an editor notices another editor making questionable or incorrect edits, it's standard procedure to check the other edits that have been made by that editor. I read through your comments on User talk:Magnolia677 and on Talk:New Fairfield, Connecticut. I don't see any genuine attempts on your part to discuss why other editors had objections to your edits, I just see you making a lot of accusations. Stop casting aspersions. Calmly ask the editors who revert you why they objected to your edits. Listen to their responses and take their advice. And never copy-and-paste from other websites. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No other editor did have problems with my edits. In fact one questioned Magnolia677’s intentions on deleting. If you note this user has been cited multiple times for engaging in edit wars so this is not an isolated incident. He puts his emotions first while editing for his own personal reasons. I just wanted vital information that is useful to hundreds of thousands, left alone. But I respect all your advice and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the matter with me. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, I can see from your talk page that a number of editors have left you warnings so it isn't true to say no other editor has had problems with your edits. Since you seem fixated on the New Fairfield, Connecticut edits in particular, one editor opened a discussion about the presidential election table. (Characterizing that as "questioned Magnolia667's intentions on deleting" is misleading.) Magnolia667 replied with an explanation of their thinking and welcoming other input. Then you joined in to say "I find your argument null & void" and began casting personal aspersions. That is not how adults discuss or work in a collegial manner. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I respect your standpoint on the matter. I just have to disagree, I didn’t realize you were talking about my entire time on Wikipedia. The other user who brought attention to one of my edit’s is the very same who asked Magnolia677 why he deleted the table. I have learned from the first user and listened to his constructive criticism. I said his argument was null and void because he was embellishing by over 50 years how far the said table went back. But besides that, thank you for your help & I will take everything you said and learn from it. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Much Thanks

Thanks for your help on my addition!

Elvisisalive95 has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the help, support and guidance you provided here — Amkgp 💬 04:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Syrup

Idk how saying that Aunt Jemima is delicious is disruptive. Annonymous224 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Annonymous224, please don't add your personal opinions on something to a Wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

about the incorrect info

the reason i reverted the info was because they deleted 1,000+ bytes without any reason. I am trying to get people to understand they have to explain the reason for why they do things.Thedefender35 17:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thedefender35, edit summaries are recommended but not mandatory. Reverting good edits because they didn't "explain" isn't appropriate. For example, an editor fixed an article in accordance with Wikipedia Manual of Style and you reverted it. In this edit, you put back obvious vandalism in a biography of a living person. I do think you would benefit from a trainer. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok i understand i will work on paying attention to the content i am reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefender35 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC) I do not think there are any trainers that are in my timezone D: Thedefender35 17:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

for the warnings

so for the warning when the article part comes up do I just put the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefender35 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My edits

face palm* I’m not trying to cause any issues but why should I assume they are in good faith if they didn’t assume my Politics of MA edit was in good faith? I would like an explanation to that before we move on. Thank you--Chutyo (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Chutyo, I've said nothing to you about good faith. You vandalized another editor's user page and I warned you not to do it again. Schazjmd (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you joined on to this issue after my edits on the Massachusetts page (not the talk pages), then I assume you wouldn’t know about the broader issue on the two Massachusetts pages. I apologize for any “vandalism” and I agree that the talk page “vandalism” should have been reverted, but you are incorrectly asserting that that was the only problem in this ongoing issue between you, me, and some other members. Have a good night. --Chutyo (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that on the Sophie Labelle page

I must have not seen that the page (trans woman) was linked in the next sentence. Oops. Anyway, I'm in the process of creating a page for Assigned Male, which I'm pretty sure has all sorts of sources about it. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Historyday01. I actually was just going to remove the "and" (She is a trans woman and known for her webcomic...) but when I read the full sentence (...which draws upon her experiences as a trans girl and woman.), I realized we didn't need to say it twice. Good luck with your article! Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been pretty dedicated to creating pages for webcomics, like Venus Envy (webcomic) (which may be rebooted/continued soon) and On a Sunbeam recently. I know it won't be possible for me to create pages for every webcomic, obviously, but I'm doing as many as I can if they have a good number of reliable sources, which they usually do. There are a whole bunch of webcomics that fall through the cracks because no one ever reviews them, so I can't add those (yet), sadly. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Choked by grapes

Hard to find someone who can state with certainty that the confusion stems from that. It was stated without references in the article before I edited it, and when I looked for a reference I realized that it was a confusion. The reason became clear to me, but that is as far as I can go.--Jbaranao (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Jbaranao, that's why I removed it completely. You have since found one source that says that's how he died (although the ref needs a page number from that book). We have no sources that say that's not how he died, and we have no sources that say the claim that he died by choking on grape pips was that his cause of death was confused with Anacreon's cause of death. Schazjmd (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr Horrible plot

You're right, I apologise. Nevertheless, I don't think the overall change improved the article so while I retract my edit summary, I stand by my reversion. – PeeJay 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Woit

Peter Woit's family tree is here https://www.geni.com/people/Oskars-Voits/6000000010432516289 His grandfather is indeed the famous Oskars Voits. 70.51.103.62 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, geni.com is not a reliable source; see WP:RSPS. Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you against his Nazi war criminal grandfather from being mentioned? 70.51.103.62 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm against unsourced claims being added to a biography of a living person. Find a reliable source for the information. Schazjmd (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

He's trying to avoid being doxed but everyone knows the truth. He says himself that he changed the spelling of his name from Voits to Woit. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=45 70.51.103.62 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that supports the relationship claim before it can be added to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

He is a coward string theory denying crank. He will never admit to being the grandson of that mass murderer until the clueless journalists call him out. 70.51.103.62 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.

Updates to Eat Just page

Hi Schazjmd. Since you previously participated on the Eat Just page when I proposed a rewrite last year, I wanted to see if you an interest in reviewing a few updates I’ve proposed here. Many thanks! Anoyes202 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Anoyes202, I'll take a look. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Josh fight

Thanks for nominating this dumb meme event. I didn't do it myself since I knew it would be brigaded by a bunch of new people but it would be good to try again in a few months when their predictions of lasting coverage fail to materialize. Reywas92^Talk 02:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I figured it was worth a shot, Reywas92. The discussion almost tempts me to create the darned dog-on-ice article because GNG (but won't since it's ridiculous). Schazjmd (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Contributing

Hi Thank you for your guidance, can you please tell me what else I can do to contribute? Can I create someone's page? or add more information to any existing page according to the links I see on the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinerd001234 (talk • contribs)

Hi Wikinerd001234, I honestly think my suggestion to help Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss is the best way to get started. You get to see a wide variety of article types while helping to fix problems. Creating an article is pretty advanced, especially articles about living people. Adding information to existing articles depends on you knowing which sources are considered reliable and properly applying Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to try finding good sources for information in articles, you could check out Category:All articles with unsourced statements, that has a huge backlog. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Mackie

 Done GiantSnowman 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, thank you so much! Sorry to interrupt whatever else you were doing but I appreciate your help. Schazjmd (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Survivor Question

Good day. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to go about this, but I'd like to bring to your attention an anonymous user with the IP address 161.77.38.18 (they can be found in multiple instances on the articles of Survivor seasons adding too much excess detail laced with poor grammar, making the "season summary" sections look like a Fandom page instead of an encyclopedic article). Unless I'm incorrect, summaries in articles like these are good to contain details, but should be kept concise overall since the "episodes" section describes season events in greater detail anyway. This user has repeatedly gone overboard in their endeavors here, and while I wouldn't say it's the most egregious vandalism a Survivor article has seen, the persistent edits by the aforementioned IP don't seem to stop. If I'm overstepping any boundaries, I apologize, but I have to admit that I'm getting annoyed with cleanup at this point. Thanks, and have a good one! 96.231.250.80 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Episode descriptions are a tricky issue, like movie and book plots, because those are some of the very few areas of Wikipedia articles that let editors just write what they know without independent sources. Spelling and grammar errors should be fixed, of course, and any BLP/copyright violations absolutely must be removed, but personally I try to avoid getting very involved in style issues such as amount of detail. I agree that 161.77.38.18's versions don't improve the previous versions, but if they're not wrong, I usually ignore them. They aren't vandalism, and unless I missed it, the editor hasn't edit warred, so there aren't any definitive violations that would warrant admin actions. Sometimes I'll revert once, then leave it if they push back; eventually they find something else to do and the article gets cleaned up. I can see from your contributions that you've been cleaning up after this particular fan for awhile, and I know how frustrating that is. If they're using the mobile app to edit, they most likely don't even know that they have a talk page and have never seen any of those messages there. If their edits were obvious vandalism, I'd report them, but without that or an edit war, it's not so easy.

Let's try this: most of their edits have been reverted already. If over the next week or two they return to those articles and put back their edits, let me know; I'll ask for a non-communication block at WP:ANI so that the IP has to communicate on their talk page in order to continue editing, then we can hopefully have a conversation with them regarding the episode and season summaries.

An alternative is, let it go for now. Work on edits that you enjoy. Those summaries can always be changed later. (And no, you're not overstepping any boundaries.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Hall

Thank you for your compliment about my work on the Virginia Hall article. I much appreciate your thoughtfulness. Smallchief (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Day (Canadian author) has been accepted

David Day (Canadian author), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Section headings in date pages

Hi, Schazjmd. I noticed that you previously added sections to the date pages (example); thank you. However, please try and keep MOS:DATERANGE in mind when making such edits: where it's just a range of years, the endashes should not be spaced. This is an example of the correct format. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I hope you enjoy the pie my grandma's friend made for you. Thanks for being a great Wikipedian!! EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the diligence!

	Good Samaritan Award
	Thank you for initiating discussion re: Mencken. It's clearly a worthwhile subject that deserves more serious attention than my flippant edits. RedGrinch (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Jolene

Hi, I thought my edit was useful on Jolene (song) because the Leo Moracchioli cover was notable for being in the heavy metal style (of which I am admittedly a fan). If you search for "Jolene metal cover", on Google or on YouTube, Leo's cover is the top result for metal. So I'd like to appeal the revert.TAPwiki (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi TAPwiki, thanks for raising the question. To mention specific covers on an article about a song, the cover version should be discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right (per WP:SONGCOVER, or it can meet the notability criteria at WP:NSONG, which would be if it ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, or won a significant award or honor. If you have sources to support that the Leo Moracchioli cover meets one of those criteria, then we can add it back to Jolene (song) with the source. I hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

16ConcordeSSC

Hello, I've had the talk page of 16ConcordeSSC under watch and noticed that you made a reply. There is an ANI thread that may be of interest to you here Blue Riband► 23:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)