User talk:Sundayclose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Please discuss"[edit]

When I say "please discuss" I mean please discuss your proposed changes to the article on the talk page. This is generally considered more polite and productive than simply restoring the content. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: And when I say don't remove reliably sourced content, I mean don't remove reliably sourced content, which is exactly what you did. So if we look at which one of us should have discussed, you should have discussed before violating a Wikipedia policy. I'm under no obligation to discuss reverting a policy violation that wasn't discussed. Sundayclose (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI[edit]

About this, per WP:TPG if someone replies to a post, and you are also replying to that post, you indent the same level as the person before you. If you indent more, others interpret that as a response to the 1st responder, not to the original post. That is how threading works here. No big deal, but you don't seem to be aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thanks for the message. I think was a clerical error. I accidentally failed to indent far enough after the previous post so I added a colon. I didn't realize you had edited about the same time when I saved. As best I can tell that's what happened. Sundayclose (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 :) sorry to bother you with trivia. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: No problem. Sundayclose (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Objection to use of "evasive"?[edit]

When someone writes an autobiography without mentioning what year, city or state they were born in, that is evasive. I don't understand why you would make this edit [1]. What I did there was add a footnote and removed the listing of an unproven, evidently questionable birthplace listing from the infobox. Considering the amount of time I have spent researching, it's unfair for you undo my work in such a brash manner. Kas42 (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kas42: It's your interpretation that she is evasive. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for everything, especially anything that is challenged. Feel free to cite a reliable sources describing her as evasive. And please tone down the personal accusations. Someone can disagree with you without being "brash". Finally, if you wish to pursue this issue further, the appropriate venue is the article's talk page where everyone can be aware of it, not my talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hi Sundayclose. I have opened a discussion at ANI regarding harassment by Govindaharihari. Please see this report. Best regards. Dr. K. 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

My sincere appologies for the comment made on Chrissymad's page, but as you can see his tutoring skills are sadly lacking. Read the comment that sparked this reaction from me. Not defending myself but still. As for the biography, I would really love it if you could teach me how to perfect it. English is my third language so please try to keep up: How do I add the "Early life", "Career", "Personal Life", "References" and stuff? Thanks for your help. The Exception (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Exception: The "comment" Chrissymad left on your talk page was a standard Wikipedia template that is used when an editor violates policy. It has been used many times on Wikipedia and wasn't constructed by Chrissymad to "lie". Such templates are used to prevent further policy violations, and it was used legitimately on your talk page. You will get a lot more cooperation from editors if you politely ask for help rather than making false accusations. Let me suggest that you simply read articles and Wikipedia policies for a while before making additional edits. Start by clicking the blue links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page. If someone points out a problem with your edits by leaving a message with more blue links, click those links and read the policies. If you still aren't sure what to do, ask the person politely for help rather than attacking that person. If you still need help type {{help me}} on your talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Lost my temper, wasn't trying to "attack" anyone lol. The Exception (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Twin Peaks episodes / linkspam[edit]

Hi there, I just noticed you removed external links from the various Twin Peaks episode articles (such as here citing it as "linkspam"), which confused me greatly. It's the farthest thing from linkspam, since it's linking to the series' official website from Showtime, which is the network that is airing the new episodes. I have since restored the valid links. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: It's not the "official" website for the original series, which is owned by ABC. Showtime does not own the Twin Peaks franchise. The original series can be purchased at a number of websites, such as Amazon, and is not exclusively sold by Showtime. The links I removed were from articles about episodes in the original series. Singling out one vendor for an external link is spam. Please get consensus if you want to restore those links. I didn't remove anything from the new series Twin Peaks (2017 TV series). Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
It is the official website for Twin Peaks. It even states "Twin Peaks - Official Series Site". The series is actually owned by CBS and Showtime is a subsidiary of that (that's why the new series airs on Showtime). ABC does not own the original series, it simply broadcast it, it did not produce it. The only other "official site" that exists is the CBS one, but just contains links to the episodes. It has nothing to do adding a link where you can purchase the episodes, that's not my intent; it's about adding a relevant external link about the episode from the official website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Drovethrughosts: Sorry, but I disagree. Certainly Showtime will call it an official site because that promotes their business (and in fact it is the official website for the new series), but Showtime has no special claim to the original series. Let me emphasize: I removed the link only for the episodes of the original series, and Showtime is not the official site for that series. If we add the Showtime link to the original series, then we need to add several other links to vendors that sell it. That is unacceptable. Sundayclose (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"A Day in the Life"[edit]

The "4,000 holes joke" does have cultural significance; it was indeed officially published on the RAH website. I would have identified it as an April fool's joke; however, that would be WP:OR since the source does not identify it as such. Please see the reliable source:

Upon further research, this has even been identified as one of the 7 best musical April Fools' Day pranks by the BBC; so, it could be identified as such citing the BBC. There are plenty of other sources that could be added for corroboration if necessary (e.g: "most original" April fools' prank by The Independent:[2]. Please don't bother responding on my talk page (this IP will change the next time I logon.) — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:FDC0:7F41:9FF2:CCA8 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic. Get consensus to restore it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ice Bath On Fargo Season 3[edit]

This interview states it was a plastic ice bath. Maybe you should watch the scene a little closer. Watch the scene. They look like ice cubes.―Buster7  02:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: I read the interview. It does NOT mention the episode. She is in the bathtub in two episodes. Maybe you should read the article more closely and look at both episodes. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Where is the best place to add an external link for Vladimir Putin religious background? http://hollowverse.com/vladimir-putin/

Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tiffany McTaggart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffanymctaggart (talkcontribs) 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors with hearing problems[edit]

When an editor has been repeatedly warned, perhaps even blocked for a behavior and they continue with that behavior, the next step after a final warning should be listing them at WP:AIV. Giving them a second "final" warning is rarely productive ("If you do that again, you will be blocked!" ...Does it again... "If you do that again, you will be blocked!" ...repeat until the end of time.).

If, after giving them two supposedly "final" warnings that they will be blocked, they continue, it's clearly time to list them at WP:AIV. A rant on their talk page will almost certainly accomplish nothing. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Thanks. Excellent advice, of course. I've generally found that admins at AIV dislike taking action on cases that are not blatant vandalism, so it usually ends up at ANI. I dislike going to ANI so I guess I irrationally hope the problem editor will decide to behave more rationally. Sadly, that's not the case in situations such as this. Sundayclose (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Meat-axe reversion at The Time Machine (1960 film)[edit]

May I remind you that although WP policy requires added content to be verifiable, i.e., that it could be cited to a reliable source, actual citations are required only for "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged"? In this instance, I could not possibly undertake the project of tracking down every print and online source which has contributed to my knowledge of this arcane subject during the past 57 years, but I could probably dig up an acceptable cit for a particular detail that someone questioned in good faith. If you have some definite reason for doubting the accuracy of an unsourced statement, other than the simple fact that it is not sourced, cn-tag it. If you are certain the statement is wrong, go ahead and delete it, with some explanation in your edit summary. Wield a scalpel, not a lazy editor's axe.

However, if you are simply on a holy crusade against unsourced material, why limit yourself to recent additions (or additions from IPs, if you are an IP-hater)? Countless terabytes of hard disk space could be freed up by the summary deletion of all unsourced statements, which probably constitute the great majority of article text in WP.

Most of what now remains in the Time Machine article is just as bereft of citations as the material you nuked. In fact, your wholesale reversion has had the effect of restoring the absurd unsourced claim that the film's Eloi were an influence on the "flower children" of the later 1960s. Do you consider that to be constructive editing? 66.81.246.128 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:V. The material is challenged and thus requires a source. You have no special exemption from Wikipedia policies. As for the other unsourced material, the fact that other crap exists is no justification for adding more unsourced information. Sundayclose (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but you did not challenge it, you summarily deleted it, with no explanation except "unsourced". AFAIK, that is not the correct procedure except in the case of vandalism, definite error, or patent nonsense. Tag it, wait a while (appropriate waiting time ranges from a few days to infinity, inversely proportional to the practical importance and "heat" of the subject, and we are not talking about the causes of global warming or Obama's birthplace here), then delete if no response and you still see fit. No special exemption claimed, and I am not using OSE as a "justification" for anything; I simply do not understand your rationale, if one exists, for such arbitrarily selective application of what appears to be a faulty understanding of WP's policy. I repeat: the mere fact that a statement is unsourced is not a sufficient basis for challenging it or summarily deleting it. There has to be some other reason for suspecting that it is unverifiable or inaccurate, which may inconveniently require the objecting editor to have some degree of preexisting knowledge about the subject at hand. 66.81.104.45 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The edit summary "unsourced" challenged it. Again, read WP:V. Anything unsourced can be deleted. It's done many times every day on Wikipedia. Feel free to restore it with sources. Otherwise please move on and stay off of my talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

DrPhilos101[edit]

Dear Sundayclose, the above editor has done it again. From their talk page they seem only to indulge in antisocial editing. I think they should be sanctioned. Are you wiki-competent enough to take steps, or should I start learningBrunswicknic (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Electrical deflection of water[edit]

Hi, you removed my addition of electrical deflection of water from the list of common misconceptions, because "The item is reliably sourced, ... with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception." However, the source I provided also gives examples where this misconceptions is present: "Photographs showing a polar-liquid droplet stream electrically deflected by a statically charged rod or balloon are a common feature of freshman chemistry texts. In current editions such images occur, for example, in texts by Atkins and Jones (1), Ebbing and Gammon (2), Kotz and Treichel (3), and Umland and Bellama (4 )." How can I change my entry to make it fulfill the requirements of the page? Snipergang (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The important word for this issue is "common". In this context "common" means a very large number of people. Details about electrical deflection of water may be a misconception among chemists, but that doesn't mean it is a common misconception in the general public. The fact that your source is a professional journal illustrates that; how much of the general public reads professional journals in chemistry? There are dozens of misconceptions among experts in my field, but most people have never given them a thought, so I don't even try to add them to the article. That's true of virtually any specialized area of knowledge. If we added such items, the article would be unmanageably huge. If you look at the article and talk page history, you will see endless arguments about such largely unknown "misconceptions"; that is why the four criteria for inclusion were developed. You may be aware of the misconception, but that doesn't mean most people are. I seriously doubt that more than a very small percentage of the general population has ever thought about "electrical deflection of water". In any event, if you wish to restore the item, please provide a reliable source that it is a common misconception in general, not just a very narrow group of people. If it indeed is a common misconception, it should be easy to find it in more general reliable sources than chemistry journals or textbooks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I learned the misconception in school, so i though it would be a common demonstration in chemistry classes. There are also many videos on popular video sharing sites which show the effect, but (as far as a quick look showed) most do not explain the phenomenon at all. Thus they do not spread the misconception. So for now it looks (to me) as if the misconception is not as common as I though it was. Best Snipergang (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Simon & Garfunkel[edit]

The Coolies did an album called dig..? that was essentially all Simon & Garfunkel covers. I added the fact that they covered particular songs to the articles about that song. I have no idea why you would revert that edit, but I reverted it back. They are covers, and that's all there is to it.Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Spasm: Did you bother to read my edit summary? Read WP:SONGCOVER. Every cover does not qualify for inclusion. And instead of edit warring, get consensus on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Your attitude sucks. I did an edit on an article, you undid it, and I wanted to know why. OK, you put your reasoning in the talk page. That's all you had to say. You didn't hafta go the "Did you bother to read my edit summary?" route. That isn't usually on the talk page of articles in my experience.Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
And I don't see on any of the articles I've edited where you say anything about undoing my edits on the talk pages.Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I posted the question here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs
@Johnny Spasm: Instead of complaining and ranting, let me suggest you take a few minutes to read WP:BRD. You added an item to an article. I reverted and gave the rationale in the edit summary. It is then your responsibility to take it to the talk page, not mine. And do what everyone else here must do to add a cover: find the appropriate sources per WP:SONGCOVER. Now, unless you do what is required, stay off of my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm supposed to give the rationale as to why someone else would revert a factual edit? Gimme a breakJohnny Spasm (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Johnny Spasm: So far you have no support for your edit and you have made no effort to provide the needed sources. Until you do so, stay off of my talk page, and that includes responding to this message. This is my last request that you do so. Sundayclose (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

DISRUPTIVE EDITING[edit]

Sorry dude, why you said that? im not a vandal. as you can see here https://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/the-fool-on-the-hill/ Paul McCartney did not play the whistle flute... and by the way, in the other reference does not appear that Paul played that instrument... Have you ever read it? --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sarmiento 007: Several problems: First, the Beatles Bible is not a reliable source. It's a fansite. The site does not provide its sources, and the owner even acknowledges that he doesn't remember many of the sources. Secondly, citations belong in the article, not my talk page (but not the Beatles Bible). Third, you did not provide an edit summary. Fourth, you have made several other disruptive edits: adding unsourced content, removing sourced content. And finally, you are now edit warring by restoring without proper sourcing. Keep this up and you're headed for a block, very soon. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

what others disruptive edits?--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sarmiento 007: All of these reverted as unsourced: [3], [4], [5]. Here you were told three months ago that Beatles Bible is not a reliable source, yet you persisted in trying to use it. You don't seem to learn from your mistakes or warnings from others. I'm not arguing further with you because it's a waste of time. Stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content and there likely won't be a problem. Keep it up and I won't continue to warn you; you'll just be blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody told me that the Beatles Bible was not a reliable source... --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sarmiento 007: Can you read English? It was in the edit summary here. Now, stay off of my talk page. That's a polite request, but if necessary you can consider it a warning. Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

hey why are you so agressive? I don't want to fight with you, we are friends after all, and the talk page is for talk, ain't it?. And as I told you, I didn't even know, but thanks for the info. Hugs my friend, have a nice day with your relatives and acquaintances. --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:HARASS. Final warning: stay off of my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In my life[edit]

McCartney's claim in Barry Miles' book is sufficient enough not to consider "In my life" CERTAINLY as a mainly Lennon song. This is why I edit this article. Lennon's claim came from his 1970 Rolling Stone interview (published in February 1971). He also claimed there that 'Two of us' was a song of his while apparently it is a McCartney's song and finally in this interview he clearly downgraded George Martin. So when Lennon and Martin both claim to have been used reversed tapes for the first time on "Rain" I would trust Martin rather than Lennon. So when McCartney claimed that he composed In my life's melody, it is a statement to take into account and consequently one can't write black on white In my Life is mainly a Lennon song without any doubt.Carlo Colussi (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Disputed writing credits for other Lennon-McCartney songs is entirely irrelevant, and it is WP:SYN to try to use such information to understand who wrote "In My Life". My primary objection your removal of the statement that the song originated with Lennon. That is not in dispute, even by McCartney, and should not have been removed. I restored that portion. If you object take it to the talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy65422.99[edit]

Thanks for reverting him. He's a long-term vandal by the looks of it: see User:The1337gamer/sandbox/Andy. Adam9007 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sicilian long-term, cross-wiki, vandal[edit]

Hi Sundayclose- Thanks for your reversions of User:79.22.107.7.
In case you are unaware, this is a Sicilian, long-term, cross-wiki, vandal as explained here. There is little point in issuing warnings, as none have ever been heeded. If you report to ANI with a report such as this most admins will block on sight. Sorry if you are well aware of this, and I am trying to teach you to suck eggs, but thanks again. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--John (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@John:: Hi John. Thanks for this info. Just to make sure I'm not missing something important, did I get this notice in relation to a particular article? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I placed the notice per this edit. You are at liberty to dispute, discuss or debate edits made under BLP, but you may not revert them, as you'll know from reading the language of the decision. It's the principle of "do no harm". --John (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@John: Thanks. Point taken. That article is off my watchlist and I have no plans to make any edits on it. Thanks for the notice. Sundayclose (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Dear Sundayclose,

Yes, I added some information on the 12th grade in my country, the grand Duchy of Luxembourg. I hold a MA am a 'drs' in History, but I also earned a degree in high school education after three years of studies and training "on the ground" + writing a scientific thesis in my discipline + a pedagogic thesis. I could provide a lot of sources, but hardly in English, sorry for that! But I will look for a source in English and add it as soon as possible. Instead of "removing" the good work of a free contributor to a free encyclopedia, you should wait a little and ask first for a source. Did my information look wrong or odd? I cannot believe that. So, please, put my contribution back to the place it belongs to. Thanks a lot in advance. Besides, my English is whatever I learned at school, where I took 5 years of Shakespeare's language. Could you do as well in French or in German? I could, and even better! So long, best regards, Robert G.-B.

Your personal credentials are entirely irrelevant. I could claim to be the Queen of England, but that doesn't make it true. I have no obligation to "wait a little while and ask for a source". A basic policy of Wikipedia is: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." You don't have a special privilege to violate policy. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age[edit]

"Eponymous" is a perfectly valid, correct English word and is used in this article in the proper context. So far the only rationale you've given for removing it is that you think the word is "overused" and "adds nothing", which as far as I can tell is solely a matter of taste. I think it's hypocritical of you to quote BRD, since this started with you: You removed the word citing overuse, I reverted you, and rather than initiating discussion you started edit warring. Granted I've rv'd you a couple times now, but I think we're both guilty at this point. So, would you mind elucidating your objection to the use of the word "eponymous" in the article lead? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@IllaZilla: It is redundant. Eponymous means "named after". So what you are saying is that the article should read: "Queens of the Stone Age is the debut album named after Queens of the Stone Age by American rock band Queens of the Stone Age." It's absurdly redundant. For fuller discussion of this very issue, see Talk:Tiffany#RFC: Tiffany (album), which was WP:SNOW closed. It is you who has failed to explain. Please explain why such a redundancy is so important, or for that matter why you don't consider it horrible writing style. I'll probably set up an RfC so that I don't have to argue back and forth with you over such silliness. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is necessary; seems a bit much for a disagreement between two editors. "Eponymous" does not exactly mean "named after", since it is correctly used to refer to the person for whom a thing is named, and not to the thing itself. The word certainly has its uses, and I don't agree that it's redundant or poor writing when used properly, though I often see it used incorrectly.
Of course I'm not saying that the sentence should read in the ridiculous way you've suggested; it would more accurately read something like "Queens of the Stone Age is the debut album by, and titled after, the American rock band Queens of the Stone Age." More common in music industry parlance is the phrase "self-titled", but that swings a bit close to jargon for my liking. May I suggest a compromise that is probably even simpler and less redundant?
It's a little Easter-eggy for my taste, but does avoid repetition. What do you think? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@IllaZilla: It's far simpler and clearer to say "Queens of the Stone Age is the debut album by American rock band Queens of the Stone Age." If it had another album title that's exactly how it would read: "XYZ is the debut album by American rock band Queens of the Stone Age". Compare to an article with Good Article status: The Beatles (album). Another example: Eagles (album). Sometimes plain English is the best. You're overcomplicating a very simple matter. Sundayclose (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@IllaZilla: Do you have any objection to the wording in my edit immediately above? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Providing a link to the Goodreads page for a book as an external link[edit]

Hi, you removed an external link to Goodreads I had included in the page for Gerald's Game. I think Goodreads serves a similar purpose to IMDB, in that it provides additional information with respect to books and includes ratings and reviews. Therefore, I believe it is a valid external source to include. Please look into this and restore the link if possible. Krishnan358 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)krishnan358

My understanding is that the link was removed because it was not a direct link to the page and was an indirect link through the search results page. Please confirm if I can add the direct link to the Goodreads webpage for the book. Krishnan358 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)krishnan358

Goodreads provides no useful information that is not already in the article except for blog-type comments from readers. It primarily promotes advertisements. IMDb has far more information. The links you add are mainly linkspam. Please take the time to click the blue links on your talk page and read the policies. And STOP adding the external links. This has been challenged. You need consensus to continue adding the links. Otherwise it is considered a serious violation of policy and can result in a block from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Get Back[edit]

There's no evidence that the project was originally conceived as "Get Back." It was meant as a return to basics but did not have a name of "Get Back" (or any other name, for that matter). This misconception took hold before wider documentation was available and unfortunately has become entrenched. Lewisohn explicitly says that the project wasn't referred to as Get Back until after the 15 January band meeting. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced in the article. Take it to the article's talk page if you wish to challenge it. Sundayclose (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RE: "Specified complexity"[edit]

Dear Sundayclose:

Hello. I'd like you to please explain your charge that I committed "vandalism" and was "unconstructive" with re. to the above-titled page. Since I didn't know how to contact you initially, I contacted Help, and received a reply from Stephen Philbrick. Mr. Philbrick said: "I don't think that should've been identified as vandalism, and my guess is that the editor either accidentally chose that option in a drop-down menu or wasn't thinking clearly. There's a difference of opinion, but that doesn't constitute vandalism."

He was remarking on my original change to the "Spec-com" page, and in fact I had, in the meantime, made a second change - this time incorporating "pseudoscience," while simultaneously making the statement as a whole objective rather than biased. Unfortunately, PaleoNeonate took it upon himself to reinsert bias into the sentence. 99.245.89.128 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You now have been reverted by three editors. Clearly your edit is POV. You now need to get consensus. That is done on the article's talk page, not my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth Winstead[edit]

Hello. Have you ever looked up for my edit summary in this article? I don't think so. It says "there's no news about Winstead's involvement in the film", I didn't wrote "This source doesn't states her name, so she is not in the film". There is literally no news about her involvement since 2016. It is likely that she won't be in the film, even the IMDb deleted the entry of the film on her page. I guess it's best to remove the info in the article for now. Sebastian James (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Yes I read your edit summary. The more important question is: Did you read my edit summary? Above you fully acknowledge that your cited source does not confirm that she is not in the film. Yet you removed the information already sourced in the article. That is the epitome of illogical, not to mention a policy violation. Please stop wasting my time and stay off of my talk page. And that means do not respond to my message here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you do not have the ability to fully understand, so I'm just gonna write like this: THERE IS NO NEWS ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT IN THE FILM SINCE 2016 PRE-PRODUCTION PROCESS. SHOOTING FOR THE FILM HAS STARTED. Come up with a new source, stop being disrespectful and rude, and sorry for stealing five minutes (writing a seven-sentence paragraph is really hard for you, I guess) of your very, very and extremely precious life. Sebastian James (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Final warning: Stay off of my talk page. I suggest you read WP:HARASS if you decide to continue messaging me. My next step will be to go to WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Sundayclose. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy on assumptions[edit]

Why should I assume good faith of SundayClose? N0MINAY (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(Undid revision 767633630 by Jesper Jurcenoks (talk) Biweekly never means twice a week. Geez!)[edit]

Hi Sundayclose, Biweekly means both every 2 weeks and twice a week, I have added links to wikipedia, wiktionary, Oxford dictionary, Merriam Webster etc. Regards Jesper Jurcenoks (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)