User talk:Smoovedogg

Welcome!

Hello, Smoovedogg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Academic Challenger 08:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- No Guru 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Redding

Just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your recent additions to the Otis Redding article because they were technically a copyright violation. The text you added was copied word-for-word from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame web site.

I noted that you did cite that web cite as your source in footnotes. So obviously you were not making any attempt to plagiarize (and thank you sincerely for that). However, just for your information, even with a footnote attribution, you still cannot copy the material word-for-word quite like that. You need to either rephrase the concepts in your own words and then cite with the footnotes like you did, OR . . . if you feel that retaining those exact words is important, then you would need to not only cite with footnotes, but also cite in the article text and use quotation marks. Something like:

According to the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]] web site, Redding's name is "synonymous with the term soul, music that arose out of the black experience in America through the transmutation of gospel and rhythm & blues into a form of funky, secular testifying."<ref>http://www.rockhall.com/hof/inductee.asp?id=177</ref>

Thanks . . . and happy editing! Mwelch 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Richard

Hello, please take a look at Little Richard's talk page and contribute your comments there, we are interested to hear what you have to say. Simply adding text which has been previously removed from the article and commenting on other users is not constructive. 2help (message me) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Little Richard. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors as you did at Little Richard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Your edit summary commentary is in violation of Wikipedia policy, is basically snarky and is not productive. They start out questionably and eventually cross the line. These summaries violate policy and the proper use of summaries[1] [2] [3], which in WP:Edit summary says "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Also please note that WP:ELNO specifically excludes the use of pages such as the MySpace tribute page you are pushing, in saying "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject one should avoid: 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." It doesn't matter how many music historians created a MySpace tribute page, it violates Wikipedia policy on External links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

signing posts

thank you for remembering to log in and to use four tildes to sign your posts on talk pages. but please don't "sign" edit summaries - only your posts on talk pages and other discussion-type pages. thanks. Sssoul (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Smoovedogg: Hello, my name is MacMed; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

[[{{{1}}}]]

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards,

Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Little Richard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. There are disruptions from people who are not discussiong the proposed changes prior to doing so. I have working on this section from the beginning and people are jumping in and removing things that are justified.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that edit warring usually results in at least a 1 to 2 week block or more depending on how much you guys were being silly on here. Just resolve the solution now, or a report may be sent in.(Zaxby (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I don't think informal mediation has any meaningful downside. In fact, by taking part in some form of dispute resolution, your far less likely to blocked. The other parties have signed up to these ground rules. Could you have a look at them, and tell me what you think? I'm obviously happy to clarify any items that you're not sure about. I guess the most important aspect is that my role as informal mediator is merely to assist the parties reaching consensus - I don't have any authority to impose a solution. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smoovedogg, following your recent post on The Source of Wiki Power's talk page, I should probably tell you that although it isn't apparent from looking at his page, he has been blocked indefinitely for conduct unrelated to the Little Richard article. Just to let you know in case he doesn't reply. PhilKnight (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this info. I only want participation from those who will be professional in his or her conduct and was hoping that would be the case if they were to continue to be involved. As somewhat of a newcomers compared to many others, I wish I understood how to navigate through Wiki better because through examination of the talk pages(and histories where information has been 'deleted') of at least one other user, I am finding what appears to be 'unfair practice' occuring, on the part of at least one user who was 'on the other side of the fence' of the user who was recently blocked. This practice has been trickling into the Little Richard page, riding the rails with the 'informal mediation effort, and possibly tainting the editorial process.--Smoovedogg (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

complaint

Are you aware of this [4] Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Problems with Wiki Libs? If you are having problems with a user and have documented them, I might suggest you do something similar... Luminifer (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with wiki and how to lodge complaints, as I am fairly new. But I have been gathering evidence and will proceed with further action along with others who have similar complaints if people help me along with this. Also if thee is a case for any legal action outside of Wiki, I will move forward with this as well. I have focued a lot of time on improving the Little Richrd article to make it more accurate, but LR is lightning rod for controversy. In the outset I went overboard by inserting too much information and agree that it was not very encyclopedic. But I have been studying FAs and have been working within these parametres recently. I have contributed accurate information to sections of the article that are standing the test of time and now the article is more accurate (eg. intro, influence section, and the start of the bio). I remain committed to working on this and ensuring that I am entirely accurate with my references/citations, even if some of us have to contend with editors who are so narrow-minded that you could blind them in both eyes with the head of a pin.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, LR has had enormous influence on a number of musical genres (R&B/Rock n Roll/Rock/Soul/Funk/Contemporary Christian) but when one tries to mention examples (with citations), there is great jealousy from some fans of other rock n roll pioneers who go wild and delete them. An example is that LR was a first major rock n roll influence to key artists, such as Otis Redding, Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Bob Seger and Angus Young from AC/DC (some of the biggest selling artists of the last century), but they are quickly deleted. Bob Seger, John Fogerty and Rod Stewart remain but whenever it indicates that LR was "a frist" major rock n roll inspiration it is removed and replaced with amoung the first major rock n roll influences. Some will fight tooth and nail to keep out any reference of the article to him having been the first to do anything.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post on the wiki alert. Notice how I posted the pieces of your conversation there. If you have more like this, I guess you can either attach it to the current complaint, or start a new one (if not now, in the future, assuming nothing comes of this)... Hope that helps.. Luminifer (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Luminifer. I will appeal the below block. It came sudden and without warning. I was not aware of the rule regarding taking legal action if warranted.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefintely blocked for making legal threats

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-enwikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MuZemike 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User has rescinded legal threat here.

Request handled by: Smashville^talk 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Can you please point to the WP:DIFF of the legal threat at issue and declare that you unequivocally withdraw the threat, i.e., that you do not intend to undertake legal action? Sandstein 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Sandstein: I'm thinking it's this one. I, too, was trying to hunt it down. :P But yeah, Smoovedogg: I came to say the same thing as Sandstein in reviewing the block. Basically all we're looking for is something very explicitly saying that you are rescinding any/all outstanding legal threats made on Wikipedia. In reading your unblock request, it says that your future behavior regarding legal action will presumably adhere to our policies, but still doesn't account for any outstanding legal threats—only future ones. --slakr^\ talk / 10:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to point out and link to exactly what policies this is at odds with - I personally am unaware of them, and it's likely this user is as well. Luminifer (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats. As detailed on that page, threatening to take legal action (or talking about investigating legal action) is grounds for an indefinite block for the duration of the proceedings, with the rationale that it would be extremely easy for libel disputes to dissolve into arguments over who has more lawyers if users could just threaten to sue each other. Not that any legal action in this case would have a leg to stand on. --King Öomie 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thank you for your questions and comments. Please be advised that I rescind any/all outstanding legal threats made on Wikipedia, and I reiterate that future behavior will adhere to Wiki policies regarding same. Thank you again for your prompt intervention.--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain committed to working to make articles more accurate and more encyclopedic. Unfortunately, there are some users who understand how to make articles more encyclopedic and are outstanding editors but are sorely lacking in knowledge of the topics that they are editing. Further, cliques of users (note: sometimes one editor is a number of users) that have worked together in the past will back each other and support users that edit articles without commenting and or responding to comments in a professional and open-minded manner. I am only contributing to articles pertaining to subjects with which I have expertise. I am also learning how to write FAs (I thank some users for giving me advice along the way) and am looking forward to continue to shape articles to become the best on the net. Wikipedia can be fun but challenging. I don't doubt that I have ruffled the feathers of some users being a new kid on the block with little knowledge of the many Wiki policies but I have recieved comments and other feedback that has encouraged me in my development as a Wiki editor and that there are others who feel the way I do as a new and developing user/editor. I thank everyone who reads this for taking time to do so, and please do your best to encourage new editors/users that show potential to become great Wiki editors.--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[5] Luminifer (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Richard

Hello Smoovedogg. I always like to say "you're welcome" when someone thanks me, but in this case, it was actually ClueBot that reverted the vandalism you speak of (at Little Richard), and not me. I appreciate the fact that you've taken time to thank another Wikipedian for good editing, but ClueBot deserves all the credit for that one... I was just the link-disambiguator. Happy editing, and good luck with your efforts at Little Richard. :) -- WikHead (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots again

What SmackBot does is pretty much automated so I don't really have full knowledge of each article. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Larry Williams - cropped.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Larry Williams - cropped.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Larry williams.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Larry williams.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Larry williams.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Larry williams.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hendrix and Little Richard

Hello Smoovedogg. I've noticed that you keep re-adding back the incorrect info about Hendrix and Richard. Your sources for Jimi playing with Richard before the Isleys is 100% wrong. Every Hendrix source I own (35+ books) tells it differently. Also, while Richard deserves a untold amount of credit for influencing people, his stories about Hendrix have been roundly debunked by even Richard's own roadies and Hendrix himself. Players in Richard's band wore whatever Richard allowed (read told) them to wear, Hendrix did not start dressing like Richard out of mimickry, something Richard, by all accounts except his own, would not allow. Only Richard dressed fancy, period. Nobody in his side-band upstaged him or they were fired. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please try to keep in mind that the White source is an as told to account directly from Richard, making him the primary source for how influencial he is/was. Any source that has Jimi playing with Richard before the Isleys is making a chronological error that all the reliable sources on Hendrix that I own do not make. Are McDermott, Unterberger, Doggett, Black, Shadwick, Cross, Shapiro, Glebbeek, Roby and Schreiber all wrong? P.S. http://www.earlyhendrix.com/richard-menu-recordings is not a WP:RS, but what it actually says is: "Based on those listing Jimi only played on one Little Richard studio session, most likely recorded in New York City in early 1965." All http://rockhall.com/inductees/little-richard/timeline/ says is that Hendrix was "unknown" in 1964, when he played with Richard's backing-band, not that Hendrix's first recordings ever were with Richard, two very different things. Lastly, while I really want to WP:AGF, you appear to be riding the edge of pushing a pro-Richard POV, at Hendrix and elsewhere. Every Hendrix source I am aware of roundly disputes the White source which is again, a "story" told to White by Little Richard as much as it is an "historic account".GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Richard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roy Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Richard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Newark, New Brighton and J.W. Alexander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan

Just wanted to let you know your addition at Bob Dylan may get reverted because its sourced to Bob Dylan's own website - this falls under self published info - pls read over WP:SELFPUBLISH... just need to find a ref not affiliated with Bob Dylan.Moxy (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Little Richard discography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Head On (album), Last Man Standing, Jimmy Lewis and Young Guns

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dupe links on Little Richard's article.

There was no need to add a link that was already there. The Britannica link is there, it was edited in a different format. Read the article before editing the page. Thanks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smoovedogg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to DMX, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at DMX. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at DMX. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notfrompedro (talk) You have repeatedly vandalized the DMX page, in my opinion, as I asked you to explain how the source was deemed unacceptable. You have not provided such information. Could you not be blocked from editing?

I explained in every single edit summary. As did the other person who removed this content. WP:IBTIMES is NOT a WP:RS and this pseudo-scientific anonymous gossip is WP:UNDUE. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notfrompedro (talk) How do you come to derive your assessment of the publication? I think the publication itself might have difficulty with it. It appears that you do not like the content of the article and are making a political statement by continuing to block and remove the insert. I am trying to remain professional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times

WP:IBTIMES explains why the source isn't reliable. It is a consensus decision and not mine alone. Wikipedia works on consensus. Adding pseudo-scientific anonymous gossip is making a "political statement", not the act of removing it. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notfrompedro (talk) I read through the WP:RS list of sources and their status as far as reliability is concerned. It is obvious that favor is weighted towards the Democratic/left-leaning sources. I am not from the USA. I am not Republican or Democrat. I reside outside of the USA but, like many are on the outside looking in at the tumultuous state that the USA is in. Many outside of the USA do not trust news from the mainstream media. Just because the majority of Wikipedia editors weighted things in favor of the Democratic news sources, does not necessarily mean that they are more reliable. This is partly why Wikipedia is continually criticized for not being a reliable, unbiased source for information on topics.

Your personal politics and views about "mainstream media" aren't relevant here. What is relevant is policy. WP:IBTIMES isn't reliable and adding an entire paragraph of gossip from an unnamed "family member" is undue weight. If it was notable or verifiable there would be reliable sources about it. There aren't. Pseudoscientific conspiracy theories don't belong in encyclopedia articles. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huff Post

Hi, regarding your edit to Barry Manilow, ethnicelebs.com isn't a reliable source, and the Huff Post article that it cites is by a contributor, so also not a reliable source, particularly for a WP:BLP. (See more about Huff Post at WP:RSPS). Sorry! Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]