User talk:Loomborn

Welcome

Hello Loomborn, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Loomborn, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doctor Who. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. IVORK _Discuss 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the word reboot to the Doctor Who article. To quote from reboot (fiction) "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning." That is the exact opposite from what happened when DW returned in 2005. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion about the correct venue to conduct the conversation... I've just posted over at your own user page, Marnette. Either place is fine with me!

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of Wax (2005 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tourist Trap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at House of Wax (2005 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Michelle Williams (singer) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Materialscientist (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain which edit you’re referring to? I made two. I’m sorry for not providing a sufficient explanation of the changes. They were significant, though, so I’d like to restore whichever it was - with a proper explanation of the significance, of course! Loomborn (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph is a summary of the referenced body of the article. Altering the lead by claiming "removed opinion" alters that sourced summary. You need to explain what you think is an opinion in the sourced article body and find consensus on the talkpage, not just remove whatever seems to strike you as an opinion. The "some consider" that you added is similarly watering down sourced content. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. So changes must be pre-discussed and approved before being made? I didn’t realize that. Should I explain the reasoning for the change here? I should probably add that I realized later that I phrased that one poorly… I’ve composed a slightly clearer phrasing. Loomborn (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I’ve just seen your additional point. I’m not sure quite how to address that. I read through all of the cited content for that point, and none of it contained that information objectively. Most of it was in the form of editorial. The group itself, as far as I can discover, doesn’t identify itself as alt-right, and as there’s no governing body that classifies movements that way, any outside identification of it would constitute opinion, wouldn’t it? Loomborn (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my second use of the word “point” was intended to refer to the one in the article itself that I altered. Loomborn (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the article talkpage to explain what you want to change, and provide sources to substantiate the change. Simply disagreeing with the article's sources isn't sufficient to gain consensus for a change. This isn't required for most things, but in matters where you appear to be making your own value judgment, you need to explain what your basis for that edit is. You also need to distinguish between conclusions and opinions - simply declaring that you think something's an opinion is unlikely to gain traction, unless it appears in a plainly-stated op-ed. Also, self-identification is not considered a valid basis for characterization - we rely on independent sources, since anybody can deflect or deny a controversial affiliation. This is particularly true for things in the alt-right sphere, where practically everybody declares themselves to be as mainstream s the Chamber of Commerce. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t agree more! That’s what I was getting at; the changes I made were intended to remove statements of opinion which were included in the text as facts. Establishing that something is a fact is the responsibility of the person who originally posts the information… the two changes I made were to clarify things that were not otherwise substantiated by the text of the article. The cited sources never provided any material to explain their identification of the phenomenon (movement, I guess?) as alt-right. Only one explicitly stated that it was, and it simply used the phrase with no explanation. One wasn’t even about comicsgate at all.

Of course, I understand that it’s necessary to take extra caution in dealing with sociopolitical issues, so I’m happy to see the diligence.

But I get ya. I’ll write a post about it on the talk page. Loomborn (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’ve made the post! After that, I looked at some of the other posts have raised exactly the same points, which I was not expecting. I’m all but a complete novice when it comes to this… can I ask, how is the decision ultimately made? Who makes the call in the end? Loomborn (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]