User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2024

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Anastrophe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on O Brother, Where Art Thou?. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

:@NinjaRobotPirate: What a ridiculous accusation. I did not revert article content - which is what is forbidden to do repeatedly - I reverted hidden text being presented as if it's a WP policy. Please retract this accusation. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Meh. You'd think an admin would know better. I'll edit the hidden text to at least present as a GUIDELINE rather than a policy, and I'll make it polite. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Beheading video

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Special WP:BLPCRIME exception for beheading cases?. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Iljhgtn/MyDefaultsummaries.js

I tried to follow your steps, but I do not think it is working. I mainly just broke out the common "Spelling/grammar/typographical" etc. into different lines with the commas and formatting you indicated. Should work from what I can tell, but I am also by no means a coder whatsoever. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Can you share the specific name of the new summaries.js file you created, and I can have a look at it? As I mentioned, only you or an admin can actually edit the file, (which is a good thing) but it means I can't directly fix it for you. But I can have a look and see what might be amiss. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually no need to give me the name - found it in the obvious place, your common.js file. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And I see the problem - there is no MyDefaultsummaries.js file. Did you not save it - or maybe named it differently? Bear in mind the name is case-sensitive. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm slow this morning, just needed to look at your 'user contributions'. You named the file "MyEditSummaries.js" - so just change your common.js file to reflect that name, and it should work fine - your edits on the MyEditSummaries.js file look correct. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"so just change your common.js file to reflect that name" how do I do that? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Same as within the instructions - just open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iljhgtn/common.js , and edit it to reflect the correct filename. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for your recent edits on Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College! I am trying to improve the article to get it to GA level and your copy edits have been a huge improvement. I appreciate it! Mokadoshi (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mokadoshi, happy to help. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also archive.

I like how you have an archive set up for after you read everything. Much cleaner than my talk page. I would like to set up my talk page exactly as you have yours set up, and even add the, "Posts here will be archived after I read them." comment too if that is allowed. If that is considered plagiarizing, I will come up with my own language. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Perfectly fine to copy how I have it. Much of the process is the same as setting up the default summaries, except that you'd create the archive file 'User_talk:Iljhgtn/Archive', and can split it out further if you like - by month, year, size, whatever. Much of the archiving process can be automated in the long term, there are templates for automatically archiving at various intervals, but in order to archive 'after you read it', you need to do it by hand. WP:Archiving would be your first step. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I will try this out tomorrow maybe. Another thing that feels like it might take some time. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually - to just get started (I used to have all of my usertalk page commentary in a single archive file, enormous) just visit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iljhgtn/Archive
to start the page, put "{{archive}}" at the top, save it, then add the following at the top of your talk page itself and save it:

That will create the usable link on your talk page to reach the archives easily. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

eesh, i used the wrong syntax for the archive box, use this:

That should get you going. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look quite like yours. I have only had an account for 2023 and 2024, so it will have fewer years, but otherwise I would like for it to look the same if you are able to help. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to configure my archive bot agent to auto-archive at least every 14 days if possible, but to otherwise sort it in boxes by year like you have. I tried setting it up if you want to take a look on my talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For auto-archiving I'd direct you to the instructional pages - since I don't autoarchive I don't know the exact steps you'd take to set that up, but as with most of the activities I'm sure there is a method for doing so. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So in that case, I believe you'd just create [[User talk:Iljhgtn/Archive_2024|2024]] and link to that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

edit summaries

Can you instead help me to make sure that I have the edit summary thing working properly? I do not have that working, though I got the archive figured out. User:Iljhgtn/MyEditSummaries.js - Wikipedia Iljhgtn (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If you visit your 'common.js' file - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iljhgtn/common.js - it shows that you have both the non-existent/misnamed version, and the correct version (along with a script I'm unfamiliar with above them):

importScript('User:Iljhgtn/MyDefaultsummaries.js');

importScript('User:Iljhgtn/MyEditSummaries.js'); // Backlink: User:Iljhgtn/MyEditSummaries.js

You'll want to remove the entire MyDefaultsummaries.js line. That may be the problem. Also be sure to bypass the browser's cache - there's a wikilink on the page with instructions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

i just removed that line. i still do not see it working. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have about an hour of free time right now. if you happen to be free right now i can try and finally fix this and then not need to bother you about this ever again. :) Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I added your script to my own common.js, and it works fine for me. Have you forcefully refreshed your browser cache as directed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache ?

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

just tried that too. cleared my cache for "all time" and it still does not show me the options that i manually selected to be included in the drop-down selection for me. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

One peculiar thing I notice, which I can't rightly explain, is that on your common.js page, if I clicked on 'Manage User Scripts' link, even though the script was not commented out (The "//" at the beginning of the line which disables it), it showed as disabled. If you toggle the script to enabled, it appears that 'fixes' it. I don't understand why that would be the case. Note also that I am able to perform that toggle, on your common.js file - so it's worth keeping in mind that even though it's your file, others can edit it, which is troubling, to say the least. Let me know if it now works.. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

is that normally locked down so that others cannot edit it? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I just tried it again, and nothing seems to have changed. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The script thing says "cannot install" by the way on that page. Should that concern me? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please share the link to YOUR own common.js page that does this working? I will check line by line so that I can get this to execute properly. Perhaps with the right code this will work for me. Thank you very much! Iljhgtn (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The path is the same as mine, except that it's under my userid; it's the same for everyone -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anastrophe/common.js.

I would assume that it should be locked down, but apparently it isn't. You're welcome to try adding something to mine and saving it, and we'll see if it's global. Note that my common.js has the line to your MyEditSummaries.js in it - except that it's 'commented out' with the two "//" at the beginning of the line. The common.js file cannot be uninstalled as every account has to have it. I just had a look at your common.js and it was showing that MyEditSummaries.js was disabled - a line through it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually now it doesn't even list MyEditSummaries.js under manage scripts. I've no idea what's going on there, perhaps remove the entire contents of common.js, save, then add it back? Not much of this is making sense at this point. Probably need help from folks who actually work on such scripts, but I have no idea offhand where one might find them here on WP. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And I also see that your common.js does show 'install' up at the top. I'll poke around (wikipedia, not your stuff) and see if there's better/more info somewhere here. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I hope to have this completely solved either today or tomorrow. I have held back from editing on any other pages mostly until I get this resolved so that I do not risk annoying anyone else with the "potted" edit summaries. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found any help, but I discovered a few things. First, when I was editing your common.js, the system was lying to me - because your common.js is not my common.js, it viewed it as just another script; thus, when I viewed your common.js, it would offer the ability to 'install' it. If i did that, on your common.js page, it would add it to my common.js, adding "importScript('User:Iljhgtn/common.js');" to my list. So that explains that - I can't really edit your common.js.

If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iljhgtn/common.js and click 'manage scripts', what does it list under 'common (applies to all skins)'? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"User:Iljhgtn/MyEditSummaries.js (Uninstall | Disable)" Iljhgtn (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

and if you toggle 'Disable' to 'Enable' then back again, refresh the page, then try editing a random article, does it make any difference? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Tried that now. It is still showing me, "Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction"... instead of "spelling", "grammar", "punctuation", and "typo" as broken out and separate drop-down options. Those are the primary four new fields that I want as separate new fields if we can make this work! Iljhgtn (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That suggests that you still have the main script enabled under 'gadgets'. Please check, it may be overriding your own script. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

OH I DO!!! WAS I SUPPOSED TO TURN THAT OFF??? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that was not anger, that was excitement. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

IT WORKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks a lot!!! That is all that I needed. One week later, we got it solved. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

More than anything, that's my fault, for not including that in my instructions, which were, as I believe I described them "a dog's breakfast" (in other words, garbage!) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In my "defense", as weakly as I can summon it, trying to reproduce every step that I had taken in making my own changes was a task of pretending I had not made my own changes and trying to remember each step that I'd done. A guaranteed path towards failure, my apologies for creating a weeklong nightmare of head-scratching!! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a nightmare, more like an adventure. This chapter is now closed. Feel free to archive all of this now. I really appreciate your help, take my barn star as part of my thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for sticking with me on this and getting the gadget to work. I just needed to turn off one gadget in order for the other to work. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but it feels strange to accept praise for screwing up the instructions in the first place, heh! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Watermarked photo

Anastrophe: Regarding the edit on George Mikan that you recently reverted, I consider you committed a mistake and want to give my reasons.

First, the photo uploaded has not watermarks because I edited it myself to remove them. This is because that watermark comes from the ebay seller, who does the same with all the items on sale although some images may be in the PD.

The Mikan photo meets the requirements for being PD in the US (at least as far as I know, tell me if I'm wrong) and that's why I removed the watermark from the image.

If my statements are correct, please restore the photo. If I'm wrong, please could you tell me why?. Thanks in advance. Fma12 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fma12, I failed to link to the more relevant page for why removing the watermark and posting isn't a good idea. Here's more info:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Removal_of_watermarks_from_Commons_images

I just checked, and the image is in the public domain per Associated Press's failure to renew copyright:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_distributed_by_Associated_Press

However, ultimately I would simply argue that the existing image is far more visually interesting than a photo of him holding some telegrams. There are a lot of images of Mikan out there - and the article has five photos currently. At worst, add the portrait then move the existing image into the body. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

North Dakota Open Carry

Hello, why exactly was my edits reverted? The requirement to possess a license to open carry in North Dakota was completely repealed in 2023. Thegunkid (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thegunkid,

I explained the revert in my edit summary. The requirement may well have been repealed in 2023. You need to update the source the information is based on if so. The currently linked citation does not mention the repeal.

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The only issue is because North Dakota already passed constitutional [concealed] carry in 2017, no news article mention the repeal of the day-time ban on loaded open carry which was done in 2019 under HB 1293 as the bigger story was vehicle carry. That said, could I cite the video of legislative hearing where the representive who introduced HB 1293 explicitly states the bill removes the requirement to have a license to open carry? Thegunkid (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That would almost work, but it doesn't verify that the legislation passed into law. Let me take a look around, maybe I'll find something. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not exactly sure what to do as the page already cites to the current statute which has the following language.

Unless otherwise prohibited by law, an individual may carry a handgun if the handgun is unloaded and in plain view or secured.
A limitation under subsection 1 does not apply to:
[...], An individual not otherwise precluded from possessing a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license under chapter 62.1-04 and who possesses a valid driver's license or nondriver identification card issued by the department of transportation or by the individual's state or territory of residence, or an individual who has reciprocity under section 62.1-04-03.1

Also it appears I was mistaken, the requirement to have a license to open carry for residents was repealed with constitutional carry in 2017, also I decided to look through the history of the law and established this timeline of changes to unlicensed carry in North Dakota

Pre-2015 - Loaded Open carry at night only.
2015 - Permit required to carry loaded gun at night, unloaded Open Carry at night still allowed.
2017 - Constitutional carry for residents, non-residents can still open carry unloaded at night, 1 year residency for constitutional carry
2019 - Non-Residents can open carry unloaded 24/7, 30 day residency for constitutional carry
2023 - All residency requirements repealed for constitutional carry.

Thegunkid (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that it tends to only be advocacy groups - either pro-2a or anti-2a - that report these kinds of things. However, I did find the following: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/nd/67/bills/NDB00004209/ - which should do the trick. I can add it or you'd like to that's fine as well. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean if the current statute isn't enough then we may actually need cite back to the original constitutional carry bill from 2017 as I mentioned I realized the only substantive change from the 2019 bill was removing the time restrictions on unloaded open carry for non-residents as it turns out under the 2017 constitutional carry bill it covered open carry for residents as well.

I'm perplexed reading about this that open carry hasn't required a permit [for residents] for nearly 7 years now yet nearly every source, NRA, Gliffords still states it requires a permit.

I think the confusion lies with the fact the official North Dakota Attorney General Page about constitutional carry only mentions concealed carry Thegunkid (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's incredibly confusing, I started down a rabbit hole trying to understand what's what, and just got more confused. Unfortunately I'm not at all well-versed in these matters, probably a byproduct of having lived my entire life in California! Honestly, a great many of these 'list of' types of articles on wikipedia are terribly prone to information 'decay', as laws change so often. I found this page, which considering the source should qualify as reliable, current, and authoritative:

https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/public-safety/constitutional-concealed-carry/

I'd suggest rolling with that ahead of any other source. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha, I just reread what you wrote and you specifically mentioned that page. I think if we're going to rely on anything, that attorney general page is the best way to go until something better shows up. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I just realized something, that is the the AG page specifically links to the 2017 AG opinion on vehicle carry (which dates this page to before 2019) that was issued due to the legislature overlooking that specific statute when they passed constitutional carry.

It is my opinion, that an individual’s valid driver’s license or sanctioned identification card is the equivalent of a “valid concealed weapons license” as required under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-10 with regard to what was previously only known as a class 2 concealed weapons license. Therefore, it is further my opinion that when an individual meets the qualifications for constitutional carry in North Dakota, a loaded gun may be stored in a vehicle but proper identification must be revealed to law enforcement upon a traffic stop or other in-person contact, as required in N.D.C.C § 62.1-04-04. This interpretation is consistent with the Legislature’s intent and accomplishes the statutes’ goals and objectives.

I'll go ahead and add this to the article now. Thegunkid (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Good find. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the edits.

I wasn't sure how to address the timeline. The issue being that the 'scandal' was undergoing at the time Sebastian announced he was standing down - however it was not public. The video by 'GN' took time to put together. Dates of correspondence where mentioned in the GN video. GN has a history of notifying the other party ahead of releasing critical content (principles/integrity - you get the idea).

Potential legal action had been mentioned by billet labs via letter to sebastian well before the release of the GN video, it appears to have been going on for some time.

Obviously its hard to pin down why he left exactly and with absolute certainty. The issue was the original wording made no mention at all of the scandal and implied a peaceful exit. The edits are probably enough, but i thought i bet clarify.

Again, thanks for helping edit my changes, im new to WP and only here for this edit. Without such help, my edit would no doubt be fully reverted. 90.255.227.238 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reenactment of the century

Part of the short film is on YOUTUBE “O.J. MURDERS NICOLE AND RON” if you were curious by a channel called inspiredbytruth 92.17.198.220 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't establish notability. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Film plot summaries

“Zulu” (1964), and “Where Eagles Dare” (1968) look they need a trimmed plot section too. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My nature is verbose; I'm the last person you'd want to try trimming a plot section! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Rebekah Jones edit summary

A long sentence is not a run-on sentence. That was an unnecessary characterization of my edit.

I was trying to remove that it was a MOS:CLAIM and capture this in a more neutral way: The differences included adding a statement that she had "demonstrated a) violation of law 'which create and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public's health, safety, or welfare;' or b) actual or suspected 'gross mismanagement' as defined by the Act, …" and references to specific rules related to firing state employees. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 23:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough re run-on, but the sentence went into far too much detail for the lede. I'll change 'claim' to 'complaint' which will mitigate the MOS issue. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Thanks! 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 23:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk

I'm not sure what the issue is. I added the Natalism category because he's well known for his advocacy there. Killuminator (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In the same edit you changed two instances of the ref name "WaPoDesantis" to "WaPOdessantis"; there was no edit summary explaining the change. Is there some reason for that change? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that happened, I jumped ahead to the category part and inserted in alphabetically. Killuminator (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can restore the category or you're welcome to do so yourself. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Same thing happened the second time I see. Killuminator (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no clue what's up with that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Kentucky Derby

Thank you for continued efforts to bring better clarity to the subject article, something I always welcome. I think, though, we're dealing with an editor doing tendentious editing because, as it seems to be increasingly clear, they are not accepting of the sourced facts or have some kind of animus toward the subject. I have invited them (I'm not assuming their gender) to bring other reliable sources but they have so far refused, instead just seeming to grab at straws, saying the equivalent of "what about this?" even though their hypothesis turns up dry every time. I just thought it would be useful to try to explain the situation. Cheers! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the background - and you're welcome re my efforts. I'm largely concerned with clarity of construction; the only 'expertise' I have is what I've learned from my wife, a lifelong horsewoman (I grew up in suburbia!). I can understand the other editor's confusion on this matter though - the sentences appear to have been originally constructed in an attempt to create the most brevity (desireable in the lede), but it winds up cramming too much info under one 'banner'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that sometimes when reflecting a source, the source may be clear enough for its audience but not quite for ours. I am actually delighted when we can explain a subject better than a source, which I believe in this case had to keep it brief due to limited print space competing with coverage of other Louisville-related subjects. As for the other editor, I very much want to assume good faith, but I'm having to go by their pattern of editing, which is them continuing to remove sourced material without having brought a countervailing source to back up a hypothesis they hold. One such hypothesis was a claim that the Kentucky Derby can't say it has been held every single year since its inception, because other races in the Triple Crown or the Travers Stakes did, but even in their articles, they show they missed years. Thanks again. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Section

my apologies , i just used little grammar good and add source on O. J. Simpson's alleged abused his first wife and i add another source from new York times old achieves on 1995 trial by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary to place replies on the other person's talk page if you use the "Reply" button on your own page; the respondent will be pinged. The grammar in the addition was almost incomprehensible, as is the grammar in your reply here; and the allegation is inappropriate based on BLP rules, since Whitney denies the claim.

I must ask, is English your native language? If not, you would probably do much better on the wiki that is in your native language. Wikipedia must maintain strict standards of quality; routinely adding incorrect grammar and punctuation requires other editors to then repair it, or remove it if it's not appropriate, as are many of your edits.

I take no pleasure in saying any of this; my original comment on your talk page recommended that you use extraordinary care when editing the encyclopedia, and it's still possible for you to make constructive edits: write your edit, preview it, perhaps run the text through a grammar and spelling checker, preview it again, then publish it.

While I can't promise to always be available, I would be willing to offer my assistance when possible - you can paste your edit here, I'll review it and advise any corrections, then you can publish it in the actual article. The problem with that is that there may be long intervals between my responses, which could be frustrating for you. But the offer is there. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your Mace article cleanup

I really appreciated your cleanup of the article, save for one thing: The Mace quote is absurd on its face and thoroughly self-serving.

Therefore, I think it best -- and in keeping with the Wikipedia ethic to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources -- to omit her comment.

Here's the NYT take on the extraction of 30,000 Black voters from what had been her swing district that she'd won by a single point, the ACLU's then-successful suit against the gerrymander with NAACP plaintiffs, that led the unanimous three-judge District Court to throw it out. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/politics/nancy-mace-gerrymandering.html Activist (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this is multi-pronged:

Mace's comment was conversational; obviously not everybody knows that it wasn't drawn on racial lines, and nobody would take it at face value;
Any 'rebuttal' response would have to be equally vapid to be NPOV - someone else saying "well, everybody in SC knows that it was racial gerrymandering"; that wouldn't be an improvement;
The court's opinions and decisions make up the bulk of the section; Mace's one-liner response is NPOV relative to that;
The article is the BLP of Nancy Mace; in-depth discussion of the matter is relevant to the article on South Carolina's 1st district/the gerrymandering article, and likely other places, but not so much here, because again - Mace didn't redraw the district herself, and the article is a BLP.

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong agree

Strong agree. Banner tags should be used sparingly(diff) and specific citation needed tags are much better. Thank you. -- 109.77.202.228 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite welcome! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I want to discuss the removal of the mugshots of the perps of the Murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart while i do agree that we shouldn't give the killers any attention, dont you think it's a little hypocritical when other scumbags like the perpetrator of the Kauhajoki school shooting have their picture/mugshot in their section. 197.147.156.129 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical about it. We don't justify inclusion of content because some other article has similar content. It's generally determined by the actual notoriety of the crime; The shooting you refer to was a mass school shooting in Finland; the circumstances and coverage of that incident are wildly different from this case. The inmate photos also have copyright/licensing issues, which have been reported. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright thanks for your reply, now i can see more from your POV. 197.147.156.129 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of images in film articles

Hi. What is your reasoning for removing cast images from film articles? How are they "not desirable"? Yes you can find images of the actors on their respective pages, but they are certainly appropriate for articles, showing who's actually in the movie. Furthermore, how are you supposed to have only film-related images for articles released past 1970 when most films past that point don't have non-free images available? As far as I know, on WP at least, there is no rule against them either. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a rule about it, true. I'm going by the typical format of film articles. If you review just about any prominent or popular film article, one that has many readers and editors, you'll find that I'm not alone in removing such images, by any stretch. Most of these image clusters have been cobbled together by finding random images of the actor in question. The images are often not in prominence to the actor's prominence in the film. Many times they are photos of the actor when they were very much younger or older than they were in the film, or even in attire from a different film role. Images are desireable in articles, for sure, but too many images are often a distraction. I mistakenly removed a block that was in a Featured Article, and another editor reverted it, which I'm fine with - I should have taken greater care. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)