User talk:Jebcubed/Archives/2019/May

Mockbul Ali

Let's please have a discussion with Special:Contributions/89.148.27.220 before taking action against the user for vandalism. That editor is providing a reason in the edit summary, so it's not vandalism. I just opened a section on their talk page and tagged you. I am okay with requesting a discussion on the talk page of the article. I might open up that section and let you and the editor know when it is open. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I just opened this talk page section: Talk:Mockbul_Ali#Removal_of_Content_--_allegedly_xenophobic_sources --David Tornheim (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek

Why are you reverting my edit to Star Trek (1971 video game)? Have you ever played the game on an HP 2000 series system? If not, stop mis-characterizing it a "good faith edit" and don't trash my correction to the description of the game. The program most emphatically did not start out as video game, even though ports were made years later to run on "glass Teletypes" and personal computers. I played the game in 1973 on an HP 2000F system, the year of its release, and remember it well. It originated as a program that was expressly designed to run on a teleprinter, on paper, an was never designed as a "video" game. The body of the article says as much, regardless of what the ill-chosen title of the article says. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 16:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

editors should be more wiser in their actions!

I Agree- LeroyoYES

If I am putting an effort here and contribute, it should be respected too! An editor (maybe newbie) comes and deletes it without warning. That's not acceptable. Its easy to delete or wipe out pages of information, but the hardest thing is compiling and putting them there. Ibutun (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)ibutun

My John K edit!

How is my edit on John K's page vandalism?DumbAnonymousMe (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please answer me! What's wrong with my edit?!DumbAnonymousMe (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hold on DumbAnonymousMe, you can't expect us all to be constantly at our computers. Whether or not your edit amounted to "vandalism", is definitely wasn't what we want on Wikipedia. Anything we say about living people has to be based on good published sources, and comments like yours would need multiple very good sources. Before you do more here I'd advise you to read our policies on how we write about living people, and how we look for sources for what we write: Bhunacat10 (talk), 17:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits reverted?

Unsure why edits were reverted? Nothing promotional added, simply added that the company has brick & mortar restaurants & food halls, not just food trucks. And that they are international. The current listing is not accurate. Jameson3310 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I get a response? Here?Jameson3310 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism Troll

Reporting people for vandalism when they simply make a change to a more appropriate wiki page is not acceptable. I made no changes to the article, except to link the magnetic mine statement to a magnetic mine wiki page instead of the land mine wiki page (which does not discuss magnetic antitank mines at all). That is not vandalism. What you did by reverting it and reporting me was. If you want to be a true champion against vandals, you need to make sure you are not just reverting and reporting because they are changes-even if they are changes for the better.

Whoa, careful before you start accusing me of being a troll. When I reverted your change, it was because it appeared that you replaced a link with random letters. It was a mistake, and so I didn't touch the page when you reverted. No one is infallible. Doesn't make me a troll. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job. Sir Arthur Puddingtrousers Jr. IV Esq. (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sir Arthur Puddingtrousers Jr. IV Esq.! I try my best! Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 20:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Airport Vandalism

New routes are consistently posted on all Wikipedia airport pages, as long as the routes are bookable on the appropriate airline website. This is true for the vast majority of airport pages, if not all, globally. If you feel adding a start date is vandalism, I suggest applying your logic to the bulk of airport pages, instead of those that seem to be monitored on a commercial basis by airport operators wishing to remove negative information for financial gain.

Vandalism Concerns

Hi Jebcubed, I am not attempting to engage in vandalism, nor am I putting any personal point of view on the matter. Each addition is without an assumption of guilt and are of a factual nature (there is, in fact, an investigation; there are, in fact, dozens of accounts posted in 2019).

Hi again Jebcubed, It would seem to me that the "edit war" is coming from the other direction. If you check the edit history, a factual edit was made on that page and then days later was removed. Since then, the factual edits have been removed repeatedly.

WKBW broadcast "Paul McCartney is alive and Well… Maybe?"

The audio of the original radio broadcast is available to listen to on http://blog.buffalostories.com/tag/sandy-beach/. Seems to be the media was pushing this story and then blaming it on John Lennon... 72.88.119.216 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources for BLPs. See WP:BLP. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 13:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

here's another source of the same audio: http://reelradio.com/gifts/pmwkbw69.html WKBW: Paul McCartney Is Alive And Well - Maybe, 1969 50,000-watt WKBW (1520) in Buffalo, N.Y., orginally ran this on Halloween night, 1969, when the "Paul is Dead" theory was in vogue. They re-aired it on Halloween in 1972.72.88.119.216 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Malakar

Can you tell me the reason behind the reverts you are performing on this article Malakar?

Workplace bullying revert

Hey Jeb, I understand that you removed the link I added to the page workplace bullying since you assumed that I was promoting something. I am merely adding the link to a software that I know can help with the issue, how is that wrong? If there is a resource that can help with the issue, shouldn't it be there at the bottom of the page? If I have violated any guidelines, please let me know how I can do the same without violating them. Thanks. Vipul621 (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

PetroRio article

“Dear Jebcubed, the PetroRio article, which I was generating and that was checked as “speedily delete”, finished deleted by the editor “Seraphimblade”. I tried to show the causes for no delete the article but I had not time to finish it for your analysis of the entire article that would come after, and I was generating it in the tests sector, so, the article don’t went to the main page. I tried to explain for you that I have not violate the G11 criterion and the content isn’t is for any promotion of the company, and would serve as a research material to the world level known the importance in their origin country. The PetroRio CEO, Nelson Queiroz Tanure, make travels around the world looking for new partners, influences and business and would like to count with this platform for reference his actions and is hoping that the encyclopedia have the function of be search material of the company and all that it means. I could not insert 50% of the references where I believe that it show for you all that the tenor was not promotional. The company in question would have their article as all the other Wikipedia articles, as thousand other yet inserted. I reinforce that the content is not promotional and respect the rules of the Wikipedia community as an all. Thanks.” --Rodrigoduostudio (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigues Edits

Good Morning. The edits made to the Rodrigues page are not vandalism. The information added to the page is also backed by credible sources and is 100% factual. All edits have been referenced and sourced.