User talk:City of Silver/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:City of Silver. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Appropedia question

Hello CityOfSilver,

I have a quick and interesting question... is this you editing over at Appropedia?

Thanks, --LRG (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@LRG: Life happens, so you left me a message and I haven't been able to respond to it for five months. In case you're still wondering, that's not me. It's probably a stalker whose usernames tend to contain the word "belt." Thank you for finding this. I'll try to keep an eye on it. City Of Silver 15:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What?

How was me updating the photo "unconstructive"? The old one is trash.

@Sirminus: The problem with those warnings is that they come with boilerplate language like "unconstructive" when, in this instance, I'd have preferred "stupid and unfunny." I probably should have changed it. City Of Silver 19:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The image wasn't an attempt to be funny, the first one was based on a tweet saying he died about 20 mins ago and the image is just a way better picture of him. The old one is from like the 80's.

@Sirminus: Thank you for the word salad defending your stupid, unfunny edit. City Of Silver 19:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about "salad"? Look, I saw this post (https://twitter.com/NickHearse22/status/923612022062886912) when Rod Stewart was trending on Twitter and I wanted to be the first to update the page with the death information. Is that wrong of me to have done? The image change I did because it looked better than the one you had, seemed a bit more respectful.

@Sirminus: I have to give you a bit of credit. Usually when people vandalize this site, they don't work this hard to protect their stupid, unfunny edits. City Of Silver 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

History of the periodic table

In "On March 6, 1869, he made a formal presentation to the Russian Chemical Society, entitled The Dependence Between the Properties of the Atomic Weights of the Elements.", wWhat are these grammatical errors (that require passive sentence)? -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: Your preference: "On March 6, 1869, he made a formal presentation to the Russian Chemical Society, entitled The Dependence Between the Properties of the Atomic Weights of the Elements."

My preference, which I changed right after because it wasn't much of an improvement: "On March 6, 1869, a formal presentation was made to the Russian Chemical Society, entitled The Dependence Between the Properties of the Atomic Weights of the Elements."

The comma after 1869 works with the second option but it needed to be dropped from the first because it created a clause that referred to Mendeleev when it should have referred to his presentation that took place on that day. Also, there was a double space between "presentation" and "to." I just squinted at it for ten seconds, wondering what exactly I was looking at that was bugging me. These are both ticky-tack issues which is why I just rewrote the whole thing per your concern over passive voice. City Of Silver 19:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tobias_Conradi

Since you're one of the recent revert targets too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you. Maybe it'll be helpful if I turn into a human fly light. City Of Silver 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Edited the state and city according to the NCRB report

Did not vandalize valid contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure Indian (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pure Indian: I never said you vandalized anything. Your edit contained a claim about Bihar that your own source says isn't true. Why did you add that falsehood? City Of Silver 16:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Super Sentai

What exactly was wrong with the edits I made?.86.131.175.43 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you, I consistently use edit summaries to explain what I'm doing. The answer to your question is in the summaries on my edits at that page. City Of Silver 18:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant what was wrong with the actual edit itself, not the lack of edit summaries. What wasn't "valuable" about it?.86.131.175.43 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The first edit had an unsourced claim, that Naoko Takeuchi was a fan of the show. I don't understand why it matters if he was or wasn't. Seems like a trivial addition. Hence, no value. It also had a hidden note that seemed to be a request for further edits, even though if you believe that date should be included, you should just add it.

Your second edit reverted me. Like anyone, I make mistakes and should be reverted by anyone who catches me messing up. But I bet money I've never edited in a way that a revert would constitute a copy edit. Your summary, "c/e," made a false claim about the substance of your edit. Use summaries to clearly, substantially explain why you're doing what you're doing. Also, please look at WP:3RR because I think you're close to violating that. City Of Silver 18:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. The Q&A mentioned that Naoko Takeuchi was a Super Sentai fan. I was amending the sentence to reflect the source. As for the date, I could've added it myself, but I felt like I'd made enough edits to the page over the last few days, I didn't want to clog the Page history. 86.131.175.43 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Lee Grahn

208.185.141.198 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Nancy Lee Grahn was born on April 28th, 1956. Here is reference below:

imdb.com/name/nm0334398/

That is her IMDb page, which is accurate.

Thank You.

208.185.141.198 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:DOB and, once you've looked at that, see #1 at WP:CITINGIMDB#Inappropriate uses. The Internet Movie Database is not considered reliable. City Of Silver 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Xi Jinping

I don't remember removing content from Xi Jinping's page ... I may have altered for better reading though. M

My improvements seem sustained. Who are you? Who gave you or gives you this power to reverse the edits of others?

You replaced the word "alternate," which is correct, with the word "alternative," which isn't as good an option. Wikipedia calls itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." So to answer your question, Wikipedia gave me "this power." City Of Silver 22:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scooter Braun. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Would you mind replacing this with a non-template message? I bet you knew you weren't telling me anything I don't already know. City Of Silver 22:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Well if you knew not to edit war then you wouldn't be in this predicament now would you? .... Stop with the "I know this already" attitude and start taking this in otherwise the next time I see you edit war I won't be so kind. –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: "Stop with the 'I know this already' attitude" But I know this already. Also, why are you issuing orders and lowkey threats? You're not an admin. And even if you were, I'd only have to worry if I'd broken a policy, which I haven't. City Of Silver 00:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I came here from RPP, I am very much inclined to decline Davey2010's request for full protection since it is a slow burning edit war between two users, and I don't think it will do much good. What I am somewhat disturbed by is that you seem to be using the pending changes reviewer permission to get the upper hand in a content dispute with a new user.
I have no intent of blocking or revoking the permission, but I would remind you that the edit warring policy still applies to pages under pending changes, and anything that isn't clear vandalism counts as a revert. I'm pretty harsh on spam, and I didn't see it as reverting unambigious spam to the point where it would be considered vandalism.
I don't template the regulars, but please consider this a warning on edit waring and the use of user rights in them. I'd also suggest that should the other account attempt to add content again, you let another pending changes reviewer or admin review it to see if they agree with you. If they don't, you can take the conversation to the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, My overall aim was to force both users to the talkpage as I had a slight feeling an admin would've come along and blocked them both but ofcourse you're the admin so you know best (I don't mean that sarcastically), If you feel protection is perhaps premature then I'd be more than happy for you to decline, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Correcting myself: the first revert and second were before the user was autoconfirmed, so it was in pending changes, by the third revert, the user had received autoconfirmed status. My suggestion at this point since the article doesn't seem to get much eyes and it won't be marked for pending changes review is to ask for feedback at BLPN or NPOVN. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and TonyBallioni: I promised at RFPP that I was done reverting and stopped accordingly. (Don't point out that there's been nothing to revert. That's true but I need to pretend like it's not so I can pat myself on the back here.) Since I said that, an admin and a non-admin issuing demands and threats like he is an admin have promised sanctions if I revert again. How come?

I'll do you one better. I'm done, for the near future, with Braun' s article. Tony, you mean well so I'll take your advice and work on pumping the brakes a bit better from now on. Davey, you left that template because you wanted a confrontation. I took your bait and that was not a good move on my part. Per WP:NOBAN, please don't come here to discuss this any more. If you ever again think I messed up, please type something out rather than leave a template. If you can't resist, please just stay away entirely, again per NOBAN. City Of Silver 01:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

CityOfSilver: the reason my tone was so strong in the above message was because it involved a user right for two of the reverts. The general rule for using permissions is that they should never be used in a content dispute, which this was in my opinion. While I suppose the PCR permission is the ability to accept the change it looks like you rejected two through the pending changes interface, which to me is close enough to be worrisome. Just keep in mind in the future that pending changes is subject to our normal rules around content disputes, and you should be fine :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm an inclusionist, so to speak, when it comes to what vandalism is. To my mind, the edit was not just bad, it was low-level vandalism because the user was shown what policy and guideline she was violating and kept going. (Nobody's defending that edit. If it were remotely defensible on its content, I absolutely wouldn't have reverted that many times.) I pointed her in the right direction. She responded by changing literally nothing about the edit while explaining her revert with (what I consider) a totally dishonest edit summary. I have no idea what mental process I should go through to continue assuming that's a good faith user. That edit summary was her admitting she read those links, meaning she understood what was wrong and chose to keep going.

And I'm not trying to be a pest or get a win over an admin or anything. I've been wondering this for years and this isn't the first time I've tried asking someone this. I see a well-meaning bad edit, I revert it, I try to show the user what the issue is, and they revert me, using blatant dishonesty to preserve what they did. Our definition of vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." I'm looking at "or other behavior", because that's why I've always felt on solid ground considering edits borne out of blatant, deliberate behavioral transgressions vandalism. If what she did isn't "behavior deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat," what should I call it? And if this isn't what that means, what sort of non-editing behavior is that parenthetical talking about? City Of Silver 04:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries: I'm new at this sysop gig, and I also believe very strongly in admin accountability, so you don't ever have to worry about asking me questions or to explain myself. I have a very narrow definition of vandalism, because that is my understanding of policy. Vandalism is defined as deliberate underming of the purpose of Wikipedia, and edit summaries like this in my mind show that someone isn't trying to disrupt Wikipedia: they are adding content you disagree in terms of language and weighting, but which is covered by reliable sources.

That's a content dispute, mainly dealing with weighting, which is covered by NPOV, something that is explicitly listed as WP:NOT VANDALISM. In these cases, its up to users to determine by consensus how it should be included. If consensus is against the new user (as it often will be), thats fine, but edit warring with them when you are a pending changes reviewer is not the way to handle it: the community might decide that they are right, especially when they seem to be citing policy. That's a good faith content dispute, not vandalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Also see this conversation at AN for what is a consensus among admins for what vandalism is and isn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tyrese Gibson

Hello! I have no idea why you reverted the deletion of unsourced - and in the case of the claim that Tyrese Gibson directed a movie that he did not, easily verifiable as false - statements, but please don't do so! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.153.86 (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello CityOfSilver -- Never thought I'd agree with a 6-edit anon over a solid established editor like you. But in this case, I think the article is better off without the material which this anon deleted. Maybe you should take another look. . . Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@135.23.153.86 and WikiPedant: First things second. I restored the text "Singleton directed the blockbuster hit." That text is referring to 2 Fast 2 Furious, which was directed by John Singleton. I looked several times in a vain effort to figure out what text constituted "the claim that Tyrese Gibson directed a movie that he did not". It looks more like an accidental misreading than a deliberate error but either way, it refers to text that I did not add or re-add to that article.

The other issue was regarding a claim that called Paul Walker Gibson's best friend. That doesn't appear to be sourced by either of the two citations after it but believe it or not, that's not a good enough reason to revert in this case. Pending changes protection is meant to "suppress vandalism and certain other recurrent nuisances" at articles but this is definitely not vandalism nor is it apparently a "recurring" issue. I'm aware that this might be seen as an overly strict reading of what pending review is for but similarly, I could use a far, far better description of this claim than "graffiti."

That said, is that true? Were Walker and Gibson best friends? Almost definitely. It could be a minor WP:PRIMARY problem but since Gibson has, on more than one occasion since Walker's death, called him his "best friend" or said the two of them were "best friends," it's definitely not actionable per WP:BLP and, I'm sorry to say, it makes the IP user's edit summary, "graffiti," even more of a lie than when I first reverted it. City Of Silver 18:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello CityOfSilver -- I wasn't thinking in terms of the criteria governing pending change reviews, just the criteria governing any editing. I don't find it particularly encyclopedic to use terms like "blockbuster hit" and to chronicle who was who's best friend in an encyclopedia. This sort of comment strikes me as more in the bailiwick of tabloid news. But, I don't feel terribly invested in this article and am content to leave it as your call. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPedant: I don't have any issue with any version of the content. That movie was the second time Gibson collaborated with Singleton, and I think that bears some kind of mention even if it's different from what you believe (and I agree) is the unencyclopedic term "blockbuster hit." And the "best friend" thing, I think, is a decent touchstone in Gibson's public life because he's highly notable, Walker is too, and if we're going to mention Walker in Gibson's personal life, we should explain that they were more than just co-workers. But that's my opinion, this is celebrity/Hollywood stuff, and the article doesn't majorly suffer no matter what gets included and what doesn't. My issue was mostly behavioral, and while I asked the anonymous editor here to weigh in, those sorts of requests tend to go ignored so I think we're just on the same page here. City Of Silver 21:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPedant: Adding, I just tried to re-write that part in a way that addresses as many of these concerns as I could. If you think I should get reverted or the whole think should get changed, you're probably right and you can feel free to do what you think is best. City Of Silver 21:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Yes, I'm fine with those improvements. Looks good to me. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I really mean

Then you mean you are the mature of the situation right? You think the best just because you can edit the shit you want and nobody question you, great, now give me a ban saying I acted with disrespect, just because I told the truth, go there --Previous unsigned comment added by 2804:7f0:a090:edbd:3d03:70ab:af8e:1a4a

I have no clue what you're talking about. Watch your language on this page. CityOfSilver 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hey there man! Couldn't decide what kind of Barnstar was appropriate for this situation so I just chose the normal one.... Anyways, I wanted to give you some major kudos for recently stepping in on that little... ordeal that took place at List of Game of the Year awards- not sure if that editor's going to come back and complain even more, but either way your response to them on their talk page was super bold (yet fairly respectful, despite how hostile they were acting), and I honestly appreciate your way of handling it. I low-key look up to editors like you... thanks.

Also, power to the left-handed people yo- left on mate!! :) -Tristan TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer: Thank you very much for this. That's an odd article in that it periodically gets clusters of contentious edits but, if I recall correctly, the editors all seem to be different people with entirely distinct agendas. It's frustrating for me and I'm sure you feel the same but thankfully, it doesn't get targeted too often. I doubt my message made a difference but at least anybody questioning how we treated them can't say we didn't try to convince them to cooperate with others. CityOfSilver 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Bill Belichick

I suspect what's causing these edits is that Belichick is listed at 237 regular season wins through 2016, plus 26 post-season wins, plus 8 2017 wins so far. That adds up to 271 total wins. But I still haven't seen a citation for that, so I reverted the latest change. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: That makes sense; thank you for putting in the effort where I should have bothered but didn't. To me, it just looked like they were sending fan mail for their favorite football coach. CityOfSilver 18:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

About your comment on the article for "media conglomerate"...

You stated that you reverted the removal of the "Globalize/US" tag from media conglomerate because more was removed than the anon editor thought. So, in that case, I am asking you to remove the "Globalize/US" tag from the article. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:6902:6A96:AEFF:91F (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

This was a month ago so I'm a bit rusty on this. The article could potentially get a section or a paragraph from every single one of the world's 50 most populous nations but most of its text was and is about the United States. (The "Country Examples" section is 553 words long and 430 of those are about the US; five categories in the "Notable examples" section are about American, America-centric companies while no other country has two.) Thus, your explanation, "Removed Globalize/US tag because the issue has been fixed", was confusing and I was remiss not to say so. Would you mind linking me to a few edits, whether you or someone else made them, that worked towards addressing this issue? CityOfSilver 18:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, not sure how to link to whatever edits, but I would think that, since more & more international companies (such as Sony-Japan, Bertelsmann-Germany, Vivendi-France, Televisa-Mexico, Grupo Globo-Brazil, & ABS-CBN-Phillippines) have been added to the "Notable examples" table (making it so that it no longer consists of just American ones), that is one way the "Globalization"issue has been addressed; also, the fact of the companies (Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings, ProSiebanSat.1, Hubert Burda Meda, Fuji Media Holdings, ITV, Mediaset, Axel Springer, JCDecaux, China Central Television, Asahi Shimbun Company, Grupo Globo, Baidu, and Bertelsmann) listed in "Country examples" is another way the issue has been addressed.

So, the thing is, I don't think it matters whether or not there is more than one company listed for a specific country, as long as there is at least one company per country listed.

In the end, that is why I believe the "Globalize/US" tag no longer needs to be at the top of the article, as more & more international companies are being added to the article here & there every so often.

But, in the end, if you still believe what you stated above, then I suggest a solution to our dilemma: start a discussion about the presence of the "Globalize/US" tag and have a voting section beneath the discussion, so that people can vote whether the tag remains, or if it gets removed. See how many people believe what you do & how many believe what I do. Have the discussion/vote run for a specific amount of time. Then, when that period of time is over with, whichever stance (yours or mine) has the most support/votes is what gets done to the article; meaning that if more lean in your favor, the tag stays & I won't bring up its removal again/anymore, but if more lean in my favor, then the tag gets removed & stays off the article.

So, what do you think about my proposal? 2602:304:CEBF:8650:6902:6A96:AEFF:91F (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Rod Stewart

Rod Stewart was definetily not sampled. The song was technically a cover as all the instruments were modern sounding but familiar plus it actually featured Rod Stewart and not through a sample of the original song. You can listen to the song here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx-upnybjGs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.154.191.2 (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

One issue with these sorts of edits is that literally any addition to the "Associated acts" section (or "Genres" section) in a musical act's infobox has to pass a really high bar. Rod Stewart has probably performed with hundreds of musicians on his albums and tours. If we added every single one of those collaborators, that box would be a mile long. DNCE and A$AP Rocky performed one song with him? We can't include them, flat-out, unless that song becomes a truly massive hit. And even then, it'll probably be a bunch of people yelling at each other on Stewart's talk page first. CityOfSilver 02:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Smith and Herndon

A nasty zig zag of a conversation where we went from content issues to a false conduct implication to nothing at all. User:Alansohn, please stay away from this page per WP:NOBAN. CityOfSilver

The material regarding Chris Smith (New Jersey politician) living most of his time in Virginia has been in the article since this edit, some nine years ago. The material is appropriate and explains his justification based on his wife's health. Removal of the longstanding consensus material should be based on discussion in the article's talk page to explain why no mention should be made of his residence. I will restore the sourced material and look forward to a discussion on the talk page if you have any legitimate concerns. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alansohn: It's bad material. It's plainly so. That it endured for a long time or has consensus doesn't change this at all.

I might have been remiss in only using the edit summary to explain why I removed that wholly inappropriate text so I'll repeat: it was comprised of "uninformative oppo research potshots". That's a pretty contentious conclusion but that doesn't mean it's wrong. (Because if it were wrong to classify it as such you'd have showed me what I'm misunderstanding, right?) A reader is not getting a better idea of who Smith is as a person and a politician by reading yet another example of an opposition researcher getting quoted by a lazy steno pretending to be a reporter than from, you know, his political stances, his educational and employment history, his family stuff, etc. See also when they attacked Jon Ossoff for months with this sort of crap. And what's worse that we're doing the same thing: a political operative distributed dumb opposition research. The media shamefully regurgitated it. By including it even though it tells us nothing, we're doing the same thing. CityOfSilver 03:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Is User:TylerLadzinski an alternative User ID of yours? The edits you refer to as you having made without an edit summary were not made by you. Please explain. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alansohn: My explanation: re-read my message and review the edits in question because you missed something or other and, accordingly, you asked a question that constituted a lowkey, totally false claim that I've violated policy. CityOfSilver 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Super Sentai

Thanks for approving my second edit. Just out of curiosity, do you have the Super Sentai page included on a watchlist, or do you monitor pages with pending changes?. 109.150.34.60 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I review pending changes, a list that you can see here. CityOfSilver 17:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

you own the master edit of this page? are you the creator of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoparasyte (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neoparasyte: I reverted you because your edits had useless explanations. (There is literally no reason to use an edit summary to type out "minor edits." You might as well just leave it blank.) I do not have any authority over the page, and it was created sixteen years ago, not by me. Neither of these things makes a difference, though: I believe your edits were bad and I have the right to remove them. You do not have the right to restore them unless you explain why you're doing these things, because you're removing useful, sourced text. CityOfSilver 06:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

okay :)

I accept your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoparasyte (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Atlantic Records edit

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the Atlantic Records article. However, please be cautious in what you place in the edit summary. Having an edit summary of "oh shut up" is fairly bitey and not terribly polite. In the future, I encourage you to use more clinical edit summaries that do not reflect any annoyed feelings you may be experiencing at the time of the edit. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: This is either a failure on my part to assume good faith, you assuming good faith when the user isn't exhibiting it, or maybe both. "Weird Al" Yankovic has a music video where he jokingly depicted himself vandalizing the Wikipedia article on Atlantic Records by replacing all its content with "YOU SUCK!" The article mentions this accordingly. Immediately after the mention, the user added a parenthetical reading "(which they do)". It's not blatant vandalism (I imagine people have replaced that article's text with YOU SUCK millions of times) but did I miss something that indicated this user meant to do anything but lowkey hurt the website and waste others' time? CityOfSilver 06:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with the music video in question. I was the admin who protected this article. Regarding the intent of the IP, yes, they intended to vandalize the article, but that doesn't mean we need to be jerks to them. We should try to be civil in all our interactions with other editors, regardless of whether they are trying to be civil. I know how hard it is to remain civil when it's obvious the other part is not trying to do the same. I've slipped up myself a few times. Still, it's best to remain civil regardless. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I won't ping anybody but there are tons of editors who could tell you that telling me "we [don't] need to be jerks to" vandals isn't going to accomplish much. I know I have a lot less patience than most people for this. For what it's worth, I don't bark at vandals just because I'm in a cranky mood or I'm trying to be a big swinging, uh, baseball bat. It's a judgment call, it's one I make very rarely and only after consideration, and in the best case scenario, it gets across to someone who wants to harm will get the sort of snippy pushback that, to me, accomplishes more than a kind approach. (And let's be brutally honest. In 99% of situations, neither approach will actually accomplish anything.)

I'm aware that you think this is exactly wrong and the opposite is true. I haven't convinced you to think any differently than you did when you came here. I've had conversations on here where others, particularly administrators (although I think you're the first bureaucrat), try to get me to see the light on something. I feel bad that it doesn't usually happen but for what it's worth, I've tried the same thing and probably have an even worse rate of success. CityOfSilver 07:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly up to you if you want to be a jerk to other editors. I don't have anything else to say as it doesn't appear you care. Thanks, and happy editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Aquaman

Hi, I reverted to some minor changes I made previously, and I've left edit summaries. I initially brought back the DC Rebirth Aquaman image to the infobox, but I noticed that the Josh Middleton image does actually show the character in full view. Hence, I reverted to the Middleton image for the infobox. DrRC (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrRC: I'm not a comic book reader so I might not be able to parse your second and third sentences. They don't seem to address my biggest concern, which is that you restored a bunch of useless parameters that don't work and will probably never be active. And even still, given my relative lack of knowledge, I suspect I wouldn't have been bothered had you just typed something substantial out in the edit summary box. Not counting the automated ones, you've left explanations on about 20 of your last 500 edits. And of those, I seem to recall almost none of them had more than two or three words. CityOfSilver 06:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: I didn't realize I restored a bunch of useless parameters. Forgive my lack of knowledge regarding that; I saw that your edit added grammatically incorrect wording into the article, which I reverted. Again, I did not mean to restore those parameters. DrRC (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Hi there, could you please not accept unsourced edits, as you did on List of metro systems and Huang (state)? These pages are protected because they're infested with editors adding false or unverifiable material. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zanhe: A page has to meet one of three requirements to qualify for pending changes protection, none of those three requirements is "unsourced," and that omission was deliberate. It's possible to add unsourced, unverifiable, or even false material in good faith, meaning I'm not supposed to react to such edits by using an anti-vandalism tool like reverting via the pending list. Pages are supposed to get pending protection for one and only one reason: because they see high levels of edits from new/anonymous users that are a mixture of good edits and vandalism. (Not good edits and bad edits. We're supposed to try to convert well-meaning but bad editors into good editors, not lock them out of everything.) If that page is under pending protection solely because it get a lot of unsourced, unverified, and/or false edits that aren't clearly made by bad faith users, that's a mistake. CityOfSilver 07:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't listen to ~~this Chicom troll~~ Zanhe (talk) who, judging from his edit history, is apparently working for the communist government of China, he's along with thousands of other Chicom trolls are trying desperately to rewrite and recreate history with a communist Chinese "approved" version of history to serve their modern day communist Chinese political purposes instead of writing real uncensored or unaltered history. We need to keep politics OUT of Wikipedia, this is supposed to be a historically "accurate" encyclopedia and NOT a place for ~~these Chicom trolls to push their~~ propaganda with the attempt to change the perception of Westerners towards communist China. It's crazy, if you do some academic research on the Communist Chinese, you will see that the Chicoms even changed their writing script from the thousands of years old ancient Traditional Chinese script to the communist Simplified Chinese writing script 50 years ago, which is another form of the Chicoms changing their culture and history. Additionally, please check out other China related articles on Wikipedia and you will find almost all of them are filled with these Chicom trolls editing and rewriting history with communist Chinese propaganda. Unacceptable, you can't change history, unless everyone here in Western Europe and the Americas ~~are just complete uneducated morons who~~ know nothing about East Asian and Chinese history, nonsense. And as for the Huang (state), they are based on reliable Chinese sources and also multiple independent historical sources from Western European, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and American academics who specialize in Chinese and East Asian history. Hell, even in Vietnam, they dont't even try to rewrite history like this. This mass editing and communist Chinese pov propaganda pushing on both the Western media outlets as well as Wikipedia has gone on a long enough, it's time that we Westerners start cleaning up the China related pages with real unaltered, uncensored history. Real history and nothing but real history, no sugar coating propaganda in our Western media, which includes Wikipedia! Please read this:

1.) "The eighth most common Chinese family name, Huang originated from the Huang Kingdom, which was created by an emperor in the Xia Dynasty (c. 21st century-16th century BC). It is reportedly the first Chinese family name to be named after a kingdom."
The History of Huangchuan city and the Huang Kingdom

2.) "After more than 1,400 years, the ancient Huang kingdom was taken over by the stronger Chu Kingdom in 648 BC and many of Huang citizens fled. By royal decree, all the citizens adopted the name of their kingdom as their surname in remembrance of their origin"
The History of Huangchuan city and the Huang Kingdom

3.) China's Odious Manipulation of History is Infecting the West

4.)China rewrites history with new censorship drive

5.) China's Memory Manipulators rewriting history

6.) Rewriting History in China

69.167.22.74 (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for fun, I struck through every part of your comment that violated WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure if the plainly racist attack on Vietnam counts as a civility violation but I struck that out too. I'm skeptical that there's anything anyone could have done to prevent this conversation from getting completely derailed by this message, which is both painstakingly researched and thoroughly unhinged. CityOfSilver 07:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, who's User:ProfessorJane? CityOfSilver 08:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Now this is exactly why pages like Huang (state) and Huang Chao (also Lord Chunshen (aka Huang Xie) and Huang (surname) in the past) are protected. Since User:ProfessorJane was blocked years ago, they've been using a large number of dynamic IPs (probably some kind of VPN service) to evade the block. My guess is that Huang is this user's surname and they're bent on glorifying their heritage on Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

More ~~ignorant nonsense~~ from this Zanhe (talk) ~~troll~~. I don't care, ~~I don't give a rats ass whether the name is Huang, Kim, Truong, Chen, Fuji or any other East Asian name.~~ I could care less, I'm not even Asian buddy. But you can't just go around Wikipedia rewriting history against the sources. It just so happens that this guy Zanhe (talk) is ~~edit warring~~ on numerous pages including that Huang page, and it could've been any other page that I've edited previously. But what really irks me and what I really do care about is keeping Wikipedia historically and academically accurate, and I have edited numerous other pages related to Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hmong, Malaysians, Thailand and Koreans and have not had this kind of hypocritical trouble ~~with these Chicom trolls~~. Preventing ~~trolls like this~~ Zanhe (talk) from rewriting history on numerous Chinese and East Asian related pages is a responsibility of all good faith editors. And for your information, I have never been blocked as I have always edited with reliable sources, no slander please. Please take a look at this source for Huang state (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/01/content_12617321.htm) that Zanhe keeps deliberately blanking out and erasing with his rewriting of history, the source (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/01/content_12617321.htm) specifically states that Huang Kingdom existed for 1,400 years. Now unless, you haven't read this article, it's hard for any educated individual to deny the reliable sources. ~~Why is Zanhe (talk) trying so hard to rewrite the history on these China related pages?~~ What's his agenda? Again I don't mean to offend anyone, but I want Wikipedia to be a historically accurate online encyclopedia instead of having these ~~communist Chinese~~ editors constantly trying to edit these pages for whatever their communist agenda is??? ~~And you can also see the same pov propaganda pushing being placed on other pages related to Ukraine, Russians and others etc.~~ Try to be at peace with others and form a dialogue and consensus based on reliable sources instead of trying to edit war and block the pages. Please stop and go to the sources I sent you (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/01/content_12617321.htm) and just edit in good faith from now! ~~I am keeping an eye on other articles for any deletions, erasing or history altering edits as well.~~ Thanks! 69.167.22.74 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I struck all the racist hatred, personal attacks, blatant lies, and other policy violating issues. You are User:ProfessorJane. I'm not reading your walls of text because you're a long-term abuser, a racist, and a very angry person. CityOfSilver 08:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL. You cite China Daily like a dozen times, and then call me a Chicom troll? I've written dozens of articles on ancient Chinese history using academic sources, and I can tell you China Daily or any other newspaper (especially their English translation) is not a reliable source for history. And these edits on Honorary Aryan are made by you too, correct? Typical ProfessorJane edits. -Zanhe (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not racist, but I am surprised that you are not even taking the time to read the academic sources provided (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/01/content_12617321.htm). Everything that was written by me on the Huang article was based on this source (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/01/content_12617321.htm) and also other East Asian history books at the university library. Wikipedia policy states that all edits should be sourced, and all of my edits were based on the reliable sources (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/01/content_12617321.htm). China daily is one source of information that everyone can use, there is no reason why Western academics cannot quote China Daily or other Chinese sources provided that the information matches that in Western sources of East Asian history. This is how Western academics know that you Communist Chinese are changing and rewriting history, not just ancient history in this case but also modern history. Why do you guys keep changing the dates of the 2nd Sino-Japanese war? (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/13/china-rewrites-history-books-to-extend-sino-japanese-war-by-six-years)(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/chinas-memory-manipulators) No Western European or American academic recognizes this change in the date of the start of the 2nd Sino-Japanese war? (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/13/china-rewrites-history-books-to-extend-sino-japanese-war-by-six-years) Where is your reliable source that justifies you and Zanhe (talk) blanking out and deleting the information in the page? Show me your sources and references please???? Otherwise please stop edit warring!

69.167.22.74 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd Sino-Japanese War started in 1937, NOT in "1931," as claimed by the communist Chinese who are rewriting history as they please. Please read Rana Mitter's book "China's War with Japan, 1937-1945: The Struggle for Survival". It states it very clear in the title that the 2nd Sino-Japanese war started in 1937, there ain't no way you can say it is "1931"???? 69.167.22.74 (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

no that user didnt log out

@cityofsilver - the saviour of bodhidharma, it is probably someone else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoparasyte (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neoparasyte: They're doing edits extremely similar to the ones you were doing. Those edits undid my work and you responded by calling that editor that article's "saviour". Are you serious? CityOfSilver 07:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a DS-alert; next time we'll request a block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit of ZPE

Did you read the reference used to justify this statement? Is your English as bad as the contributor? Are you really such an idiot to think the original statement isn't confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.148.228 (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Did you read the reference used to justify this statement?" Yes.

"Is your English as bad as the contributor?" No.

"Are you really such an idiot to think the original statement isn't confusing?" Remember when you typed out this sentence but forgot the word "you" one sentence after you insulted my English?

I clearly explained why I reverted your edit, and your response was whatever this is supposed to be. Make sure you leave better edit summaries than "hahaha" because you don't want people thinking you're here to do harm, right? CityOfSilver 08:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Me says "You be the judge!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.148.228 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This was a really productive discussion. Good job. CityOfSilver 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The burden of explanation lies on you as well.

Mr. Prajwal Parajuly is not even close to being a notable person from Sikkim. There are many more people who have actually made some kind of impact than he ever has. His books were kind of a bummer and never really hit the projected sales.

I rest my case, if you can provide me an actual scale of determining whether a certain person is notable. I'd love to pore over it and make more additions to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofgangtok (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ofgangtok: So the Sikkim article contains a section titled "Notable personalities" and your only other edit, which I reverted, was to remove author Prajwal Parajuly from that list without explanation. Parajuly is notable; his first book, whose sales numbers you mentioned but I can't find, was nominated for the prestigious Dylan Thomas Prize in 2013. The easiest measure regarding notability is simply to look at their article. That's your scale: if they have a substantial article, and Parajuly has had one for over six years, they would be considered notable.

All articles relating to this part of the world (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Northern India, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.) are extremely sensitive because they are constantly attacked by nationalists from all sides. Thus, I have no patience at all when I come across literally any edit to any article relating to this region that isn't clearly good, and that would include all unexplained edits that remove anything (unless the deleted material was vandalism). If your edit allows you to add a summary, you should add one every single time. CityOfSilver 15:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)