User talk:AndrewM81

August 2021

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 555 (telephone number), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ----Rdp060707|talk 04:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kobayashi Maru

I got your emails; not really sure why you weren't comfortable just discussing the matter here.

Coincidentally or otherwise, I don't see how a real-world ship sharing its name with the fictitious Star Trek vessel is meaningful, especially without a source that connects the two (i.e. it's not the Montgomery Scott or such...it seems more akin to Jack Dawson). The source you provided only establishes that a real world vessel exists with the same name, but...so what? That seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE to me. If you can provide a source that discusses the real-world vessel in relation to the fictitious one, that will likely address my concerns. Alternately, if you disagree, I would encourage you to raise the question at the article's Talk page, where other editors can weigh in on the matter. DonIago (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'm not entirely fluent with Wiki's messaging system. I've never used it quite honestly, and all I saw was "Email this user" so, I went with that.

I do disagree, but I see your viewpoints as well and as such, if you feel its not warranted, then I'll leave it alone as a Agree to Disagree and be gone. When you first noted the "coincidence" that clued to me as not a coincidence but just a unique situation and thus I revised my submission removing the coincidental portion. So, I'll try to post it in the talk section, I'll go back over the FAQ on how to use it. I've only done so many edits, but if you review mine, many of them are factual and straight to the point. I saw the RL Ship as related since its literally the only one on this planet with that name, and the only other actual usage of the name Kobayashi Maru is within Star Trek unless its spoken among the Japanese, sources are pretty much limited to Quora which are not validated and strictly user supplied and thus not applicable to Wikipedia. I did validate the loose translation of the RL meaning of the phrase, but other than that, there simply is nothing else about that ship.

You asked to be civil, I am honoring that, and you returned it as well. So, I'll continue to be civil and at least attempt to learn the talk system, unless you could bring it up yourself? I would gladly relay my reasons here within that talk post. Again apologies on the dual emails. AndrewM81 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! You did a fine job of replying here. :) Starting a new thread at a Talk page is pretty much the same principle; just go to Talk:Kobayashi Maru and there should be a link that will let you easily create a new thread, probably on the top of the page or to the left (I can't say definitively due to a few variables in what you might see). You could check out Help:Talk for more info though!

The crux of the matter is that I don't think discussion of the real KM belongs in the article because there's no evidence that the real ship is independently notable, nor is there evidence that it was named after the Star Trek vessel or has even been discussed in conjunction with the ST ship. If there are sources that satisfy one or ideally both of those concerns, that would lead me to reconsider my feelings on the matter. DonIago (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that, based on my own research there is no other sources, as stated, besides that Maritime Ship Database. So, in light of that, I will agree to let it go. AndrewM81 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at least nothing factual other than Quora which is not acceptable by Wiki Policy as cited sources. AndrewM81 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good discussion Andrew! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

331dot (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you tone it down, and stick to discussion about how to best summarize what independent reliable sources say about Rep. Bowman's actions. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am simply showing what RELIABLE sources are saying about him. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://nypost.com/2023/10/01/new-pics-douse-jamaal-bowmans-excuses-for-house-fire-alarm-gaffe/

the photos clearly show enough. how does one gaffe something that simple, considering the additional situation going on. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but nope. a man who has spent more than 15 years as an educator, you cannot tell me he screws up something so simple that badly. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't for us to speculate as to "how does one gaff something that simple". If you have sources that discuss the possibility that Rep. Bowman deliberately pulled the fire alarm, please offer them and stick to discussion about summarizing sources, not our own personal speculation or wants. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i just gave you one, the CLEAR ENGLISH WRITTEN SIGNAGE. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it, I'm not in this dispute; offer it on the talk page, and don't yell when you do so. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

single words in capital letters is "emphasis" not yelling. learn the difference AndrewM81 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and i have offered it in the talk discussion, gonna be laughing when he gets charged for this. he disrupted a vote, plain and simple. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest bolding or italicizing for emphasis; all caps is generally considered yelling. I would suggest that you set your political views or views about Rep. Bowman aside and stick to summarizing sources. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i no longer have the will to argue with you. have a good one "we the people" have had enough of this nonsense AndrewM81 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i would suggest that you find someone else to "set aside" indifference, because his actions have direct consequences. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this just popped up as well -

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) ripped down two signs warning a second floor door in the Cannon House Office Building was for emergency use only before pulling the fire alarm and running out through a different door on a different floor,

sounds like someone is dropping the ball and telling the story that this was an intentional act, someone who has seen the security footage. AndrewM81 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]