User talk:Frmorrison/Archive 1

Archive 1

Your recent edits

I appreciate you trying to improve the articles for the Angry Birds games. However, information regarding the character names is generally frowned upon unless (a) it's sourced and (b) it's otherwise notable. Here is what I am referencing when I remove something per WP:GAMEGUIDE: "An article about a video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE." If you have any other comments or questions, please feel free to leave them here. Thanks, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 15:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Samsung Galaxy S4 with Touchwiz.png

Hi a similar or the same image has been deleted in wikimedia commons due to licensing irregularities as users should adhere to proper image licensing on all projects. As what I see from your license it is also plagued with the same irregularities as it is incomplete and unfit for the image, yet if you wany to contest your upload you could ask for arbitration from an administrator but until a consensus has been made, the image should not appear in wiki pages. Thanks! JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted from Commons because I didn't know that the item copyright was questionable. However, on normal Wikipedia, you can upload questionable pictures if you can claim fair use, however not on Commons. Refer to iPhone 5S for an example of fair use of iOS screenshot. Frmorrison (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Questionable images are still not allowed in wikipedia. The only reason why images like the Iphone 5S existed is because licensing and image checking is lax in the wikipedia page compared to wikimedia commons. So if you really want your image to stay then crop the image only to the screenshotJeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I cropped it to remove the device border, just showing the screenshot. Frmorrison (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Moto X: A few questions

1. Why was the picture low-resolution?
2. Why was the picture of the back? Change the wallpaper to be one of the stock Android wallpapers from 4.1/4.2 or a public domain image, and there shouldn't be any licensing issues because the Moto X's home screen is literally the stock Android one (which is open source)

ViperSnake151  Talk  19:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded the back of the phone because it is unique; I didn't take of picture of the front. My picture may not be ideal but it is better than nothing. Frmorrison (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Commercial company as a reliable source

You have removed {unreliable sources|date=March 2014} from IPad Air article. Could you please explain to me the rationale if possible with a quote from the relevant WP guideline? I'm under impression that a source is either reliable or not. You however mean that an unreliable source can be used depending on what content is being cited? Dmatteng (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which WP guideline applies, but using Apple links as source for device spec or release date must be fine since there is no opinion or marketing in it, it is just a fact.Frmorrison (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. And you are also right logically. I'm currently editing an article UE Boom could you please let me know your opinion about the article and may I ask you to consider to contribute if you feel comfortable with that. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sabretooth (comics) confusing

This edit[1] made the whole section confusing. I agree it needed to be trimmed but now all the references to Creed are uncertain whether they mean Victor or Saul. There are a few other places where the article is very confusing and I don't know enough to tell if it is the editors writing or the in-universe depictions are the source of confusion. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right it is confusing, I added Saul when it was Sabertooth's brother. There are other sections that are also confusing, but those fixes are not as easy. The backstories of Wolverine and Sabertooth are confusing in general, and that is the fault of many different writers.Frmorrison (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the curse in the edit summary. Who is Saul Creed? Why is he in the article? Is Sabretooth as important as Wolverine because Sabretooth's article seems longer (in the main text not the issue list) than Wolverine's now. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Saul is Sabertooth's dead brother. Saul is important because since Wolverine killed Saul, Sabertooth enjoys punishing Wolverine on his birthday for that murder. That conflict is important to both characters, so showing the origin of it seems important. Note I didn't add the Saul narrative, just tried to make the existing text make more sense. Wolverine has more history, however the Sabertooth editors like to write more information about him.Frmorrison (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Moto E

Materialscientist (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning about the reverting edits

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Angry Birds Epic. 121.1.18.241 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your "Same Games" paragraph is not supported by the sources linked and does not make any sense even if the sources supported the text, so I will continue to remove it. Go to the article's talk page if you want to try to explain what you are trying to add. Frmorrison (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Angry Birds Go!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.18.239 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the one vandalizing the article with unsupported by 3rd party edits. Frmorrison (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 7, 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sockpuppet investigation

If this guy comes back see User talk:Ponyo.

41st People's Choice Awards

Thanks for all your help in formatting and adding the remaining information. I appreciate it! — Wyliepedia 21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome, it is nice to share the fun experience of making a good article. Frmorrison (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

iPad Mini 2 and 3 merge proposal

Hi. I disagree that the merge proposal for iPad Mini 2 and iPad Mini 3 was "not merged". It was 50-50 at best. Is there any chance of reopening this? --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been one month for people to comment and there are 3 oppose, 2 support and some undecided for a merge. While that result is "no consensus" that means no article merge. If you want to propose a merge, you should open a new topic on the Mini 2 talk page. Major changes to articles should at least need a majority opinion. Frmorrison (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Interview

Please refrain from vandalizing and reverting constructive edits. Kim and David's friendship is described by their platonic love with them often describing their relationship as "no homo". So please stop reverting or discuss the issue in the talk page. Yezohtz2 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

'No homo' is not a descriptive term for someone's relationship, but it is a slang term that people say to let people know they do not have any homosexual intent, such as saying: "you like great in those pants, no homo". Frmorrison (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim literally says to Dave "no homo" when describing how close their friendship is. Man, Frmorrison when did you loose your humour?

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a humor book. Frmorrison (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Transgender pronouns

Please be cautious in how you use pronouns to refer to transgender people. Chaz named himself. He identifies as a man now. For more info, see WP:Gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent reversion

Hi; you just reverted an edit I made to Soylent - as my edit was based on the clear consensus of the talk page, and the mention of dangers that you refer to does not seem to exist, I thought that the concerns that I raise on the talk page might warrant discussion before reversion?82.20.156.31 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think dangers are covered in development and that discussion was in June 2013 so I think those concerns were addressed back then. Frmorrison (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion portrays the clear consensus that a dangers section should be included, so the concerns clearly have not been addressed. Literally all that is in the development section the statement that there is unscientific, unverifiable anecdotal evidence that it is safe, the statement that the ingredients individually are safe for consumption and some information regarding changes to the recipe for taste or practical reasons; considering that the product is specified to be intended to replace all food, when the overwhelming body of accepted nutritional fact is that a varied diet is essential for good health, some discussion of the health implication of this - as the consensus on the talk page illustrates - is clearly warranted. Please address the POV concerns I raise on the talk page if you disagree rather than simply reverting an edit on the basis of what you think.82.20.156.31 (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Book covers

Just FYI, copyrighted book covers must be converted to low resolution (typically no more than 300 pixels for the longest dimension) to meet NFCC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the image's size. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kickass2

Hello friend. Well i was off from Wikipedia for few weeks and you didn't updated alexa rank. Please don't take me in a negative way but aGain you changed it after I updated it!
but using .to as URL and updating rank of .so isn't good idea!
Should we discuss it in Teahouse?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 17:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexa can take up to 3 months in order to discover the true rank of a changed URL. It still shows the .to address as being used less than .so, but it shows 75 at [Top 75 http://www.alexa.com/topsites/global;3], I changed the article to show 75. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So if that is the case; i find many users going for rank in top 75 or 100 or 500. Is that correct? Because i refer and also add <ref> of that particular site.
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia statistics

Hi Frmorrison, I removed your recent addition to Wikipedia because:

1. The formulation was misleading, to say the least (no language has 35 million articles).
2. The lede already gives size by article (for the English Wikipedia).
3. At that point of the lede, "Wikipedia" is only defined as a proper noun.
4. The precise number of languages is high-maintenance, and even unclear. We try sticking to vaguer number (such as "over 200").

While I think another size by article statistic would be superfluous in the lede, the information is certainly useful and should be in the article, so I would encourage you to re-add if it is not there already, ideally after addressing issues. --Chealer (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. good attribution, but please paraphrase. E.g.,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malware&diff=667213485&oldid=667207780 --Lucas559 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Millennials page

Should we really start an endless list of members? This can be done on all the generational group pages --- does it make sense? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The person that added an infobox to Millennials, that you reverted, has already added a list of notable members to the other generations' articles. It seems like a good idea. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks but lists of people are not what Wikipedia wants on it's pages. Right? There's already a notable people section in the body of the article. Could you remove this info box because the info doesn't match the article lede, which was debated over many years. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lists of people are okay as long as it has a purpose. I moved the notable people section I made to the infobox. I think the infobox is useful. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove it, otherwise people will start adding tons of "notable people". Have you seen those type of pages? The info you added is original research.2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to remove it, but I will not change it back if you or someone else removes it. --Frmorrison (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE

- saw your copy edits to WoW: Legion - do we interest you? Sept drive is in progress. KieranTribe 10:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Comparison of BitTorrent sites, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - MrX 13:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the removed content again, but I don't know how to find citations for that content. Therefore I used 'Citation Needed'. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN. If you don't want to bother to find sources then please don't add the content. WP:V is a bedrock policy.- MrX 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because I am not an expert at finding sources for a website's features, does not mean other people cannot find one. You have to allow time for editors to provide references. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Force Awakens

I have removed your edit regarding the Daniel Fleetwood story. Although you contributed a brief sentence to the debate you have completely ignored the fact that no consensus was reached on this discussion. Please do not revert or add this information into the article without consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

KickassTorrents

Where does it state the number? In the "change language" popup, there are 55 languages listed, including English. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked KAT a few months ago and saw a 30. I changed the language to Multilingual (30+) to cover if there are more languages. --Frmorrison

Millennials

When you continually edit the Millennials page regarding the beginning or ending birth dates (over time) it's an edit war. Please go to the talk page about your concerns. You don't have any sources for your edit anyway so it's original research at this point. Thank you.

I know what an edit war and original research counts as. You are the one that must prove I am using original research.

File permission problem with File:Pong prototype.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pong prototype.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

chip vs processor

I answered in my Talk page. Thanks for reaching out! -- Henriok (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You seems to have misinterpreted my answer. -- Henriok (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:IPhone 7 Cameras.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:IPhone 7 Cameras.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Germany listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Germany. Since you had some involvement with the Google Germany redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your feedback requested re major changes to Cannabis in the United States

Please see: Talk:Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Proposing_bold_changes_at_Cannabis_in_the_United_States

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on Computer mouse

Before you edit an article, it is good practice to first read the attached citations. This would have verified your claims as wrong. Schily (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC) And BTW: isn't it better to discuss things on the talk page than to edit articles? Schily (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The talk page on an article is for when you want input from others, such as renaming the article. In the computer mouse's case, the 1968 claim of a mouse is merely supported by a picture of the Rollkugel mouse in a magazine, but the only actual mouse hardware is from 1972. It is possible the mouse was made back in '68, but a picture is not proof of a working mouse. You will need to find better a citation (that possibly does not exist) than an IT article showing a magazine picture to verify a claim of the '68 mouse. There is no question of the '72 mouse, since there are four trackballs in the Munich Leibniz Computing museum. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A device designed for a military 3D RADAR system was not delivered until 4 years after the product was announced for delivery? That's a real strange guess. I hope you realize that the Engelbart mouse from 1968 was a fretwork while the Telefunken mouse at the same time was made as zinc die casting and the mechanics was using professional optical rotary position encoders. Anyway, the information about the Telefunken mouse was published two months before the Engelbart demo and thus the scientific honor belongs to Rainer Mallebrein and Telefunken Schily (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is proof a Telefunken computer was delivered in 1968, but the mouse was described in the German magazine as optional. Merely showing a picture and the description of a mouse in a magazine does not count for inventing something, while it is strong evidence it is not proof. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday, I contacted Reiner Mallebrein. He is currently preparing a talk for a 50 years of Mouse even in Stuttgart. He promised to answer my questions next week. Schily (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

DS/1RR alert on Donald Trump

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Greetings Frmorrison! This is a courtesy notice whereby, on potentially contentious politics pages, you should not re-instate an edit that has been reverted by someone else. As it happens, your change of Donald Trump's net worth according to Forbes is unwarranted. You are probably misreading the referenced source, which says that $3.7 billion is a "real time" net worth whereas their 2016 Billionaires value was $4.5 billion, and that is the one we have consensus to keep (see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 31#Moratorium on constantly updating Forbes' ranking). Probably this will be updated when Forbes publishes its 2017 annual update. According to the WP:DS rules in force, I am prohibited from reverting you a second time, but I would suggest that you change the number back to $4.5 billion as a self-revert, which doesn't count against your daily WP:1RR quota. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 23:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-remove

Hi, I noticed too late that you undid my edit, so I re-undid it. However, I let it stand in the removed state, both per WP:NOT, as well as WP:EL, as well as the template instructions (even before I upgraded them), twitter accounts are not to be mentioned when the official site is already there. In fact, none of the further social networking sites should be there when the official site is already there (with very limited exceptions, see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. That disqualifies both these twitter accounts, even if they are official. Note as well, that one of the two twitters is the twitter of Elon Musk, and not of the subject, SpaceX. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)