User talk:CodeTalker

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Special effects

Just as a heads up, the Sydney IP is a long term IP hopping disruptive editor who has been wasting their time, and ours, for many many months. Feel free to revert them on sight and if you need a block, let me know. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail, the special effects LTA (153.107.39.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has resumed editing prolifically today after your block expired. They made over 45 edits today, which are now mostly focused on adding the word "conducted" to various articles. I spot-checked five of them, and in four of those cases I did not find support in the sources for the conductor that the IP has named. I think a longer block may be warranted. CodeTalker (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're an LTA who because of the number of blocks and block evasion is effectively banned under WP:3STRIKES. So any edits they make can be reverted due to the LTA. I've reverted them all and blocked again. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail it appears that the Australian "visual effects" LTA at 153.107.39.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed editing after their last block expired. CodeTalker (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail, FYI the special effects LTA has reappeared on 2001:8003:2448:BF01:3014:B8F5:EDDA:F15D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which geolocates to Australia like their other IP addresses. CodeTalker (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla vs. Hedorah

Instead of causing an edit war. Let's talk this out: The film was cited as one of the worst films of all time just because you think it doesn't deserve to be there because of a few later listings doesn't make it viable as an opposing case as far as I can tell. The film is frequently mentioned for being cited as such in books such as Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film and Japan's Green Monsters: Environmental Commentary in Kaiju Cinema and websites. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2 you said "Instead of causing an edit war. Let's talk this out:" but then without waiting for my response you reinserted your text, which is the very definition of edit warring. However I'm not interested enough in this issue to pursue it any further, so I'll let other editors decide. CodeTalker (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

What was your reason for removing clan tree? It is oral history why must there be a source needed? Sockpuppet and personal grudges are not a reason for you to delete Vital information. I only say this because I expected there to be a clan tree there. But it wasent, too see it was deleted by you. It being edited 19 times is not a testament to being 'false' information. Rather it means its credible information I mean its been edited 19 times Im telling you right now its accurate information. My Apologies if im being unprofessional right now, but I do not have time to read the crazy amount of Wikipedia rules, ive tried but its too complicated. But Im thinking im doing the correct thing by using the Talk Page to discuss. So please, lets discuss Dervish10 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervish10, all information on Wikipedia must be supported by a published reliable source so that any reader can look at the source to verify the information. This is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia; see WP:V. Unpublished oral history is not acceptable because it is not verifiable. I mentioned that it was edited 19 times to point out that there were many different version of the clan tree in the article. Even if someone wanted to add the clan tree back, which version should it be? The only way to determine which version is correct would be to look at the source, but no source was provided by any of those 19 editors. If you have a published reliable source for the clan tree, you can make an edit request on the article talk page and provide a link to the source. CodeTalker (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will be trying to find that source but surely there must be an exception for Oral history like this, How about I tell you 3 Million People view that lineage as truth? The versions added I viewed them all, they were all adding upon each other / reorganizing the tree. But they did not edit it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282643125_The_Role_of_Somali_Local_Institutions_in_Building_Resilience_in_the_Arid_and_Semi-Arid_Lands_ASALs pg 19, you can even see here their source for this is interview and oral source. So why cannot I use it here ??? There must be an exception for this.

Yup I did my research ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#What_if_my_source_is_not_here? Even though Im noob at this, this should tell you the level of research gate it is Exclamation mark Status which means it must be viewed on a case by case basis. This one is correct let me tell you know. This is ORAL history. I do not want a person out side the culture of somalis EDIT somali history and distort facts. This is TRUTH. Somali Wikipedia already has problems with ethiopians editing it constantly and you guys do NOTHING. I will research on my later time how to fix this massive issue regarding somalia history.

It is verifiable by 3 million people. This source policy in wikipedia is absolutely killing all histories outside english...

Wikipedia:ACADREP There is the quiick link

Thank god the only redeeming fact about wikipedia is the history tab, thats where I click first to see the real truth. Just click the version before -10000 text happened. Even that sometimes is not avalible and grayed out. The wikipedia is to complex to understand even, they dont want the new users to join without a massive time investment just knowing the millions of policies.

I mightve broken a few rules just speaking to you like this, But at this point of time I do not care ... Dervish10 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervish10, no, there is no exception to WP:V. All information on Wikipedia must come from a published, reliable source. The link you provided to a researchgate paper is a master's thesis. This is probably not an acceptable source. WP:THESIS says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the clan tree in that thesis is different from all of the 19 different versions of the clan tree that have been added to the Ogaden article, so it does not support any of those versions.

Also, please stop saying that only people from the Somali culture should edit articles about Somali culture, and attributing malicious intent to editors who are abiding by Wikipedia policies. Such an attitude is not acceptable on Wikipedia and if you continue to express such opinions and accusations you may get blocked from editing. Everyone is free to edit articles about any topic, except for a few exceptions such as WP:COI, and locked articles.

I have little interest in continuing this conversation. If you find acceptable sources, please make your proposal on the talk page of the article rather than presenting them to me personally. I have no particular authority to accept edits. You should make your proposals on the article talk page so that all interested editors can see your proposal and discuss it.

Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello. yes you made a mistake in his wwf run dino bravo was mainly announced as being 260 pounds. 98.115.42.112 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on National Infrastructure Pipeline

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page National Infrastructure Pipeline, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting clarification on edits

Hi CodeTalker, Thank you for clarification on the IMDb credits. I understand that you have edited to delete each of the IMBd citations as unreliable sources. However, I did also provide references from multiple independently published articles, and in your bulk edit you removed those as well. Can you please clarify why each of these were deemed as unreliable sources. Hungryscamp (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hungryscamp. I did not analyze all of the sources. You added 9 sources and 4 of them were to IMDb, so I reverted the whole edit. If you think that some of the remainder are reliable you can go ahead and re-add them.

Youtube is generally not a reliable source (see WP:RSPYT and WP:YOUTUBE), but an official trailer published by the filmmaker might be ok just to confirm the existence of a film.

I've never heard of gawby.com, so I'll describe my process for investigating them: first I looked at WP:RSP and they are not listed there, which doesn't weigh either positively nor negatively. I then searched for the name on the WP:RSN archives and don't see that they were ever discussed there either. Finally I looked at the site itself: the "about us" page lists no names of editors and does not describe their editorial policy, so that's a red flag. My impression therefore leans slightly towards them being unreliable, but you could always open a discussion on WP:RSN to get other opinions.

Following the same process for clicker.com, they are not listed at WP:RSP. There is one short discussion at WP:RSN here in which one editor opined that it is not reliable. But that was 13 years ago and one editor does not make a strong consensus. Looking at the site, I can't find any statement of their editorial policy, so that's again a red flag. I would again slightly lean towards them being unreliable but if you think otherwise you can discuss on WP:RSN.

Thanks for asking, and I hope this helps. CodeTalker (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification on the IMDb credits. Specifically, I will re-add the following:

https://www.cinefilos.it/tutto-film/approfondimenti/la-mia-ombra-e-tua-trama-cast-location-colonna-sonora-streaming-615411 Which references the musician’s original music being licensed to the Italian film

https://www.iknowcatherine.com/about-us The cast and crew page which references the subject as Associate Producer of the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk9G4PhCn74 The official movie trailer for this short film which references that the film contains original music by the subject. *I do understand that using YouTube as a reference is debatable, however I chose to use this reference based on this “ If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source. ” considering that the uploaded is John Carter Cash, and the video was uploaded and titled as an official movie trailer for the film.

https://www.gawby.com/en/movies/1617835/fullcredits This is, again, an independent site which lists full cast and crew for the movie, and credits the subject under Sound Department, as having composed music for the film.

https://www.clicker.com/movie/strung-together-the-cigar-box-guitar-revolution/ An independent site which references the subject as being at the heart of this documentary film. Hungryscamp (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-add my edit on Fagin

I know it's vandalism but it's hella funny 86.14.40.124 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: please

No. Providing false information, even if it is funny, is not consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. If you do not intend to contribute constructively, then please stop editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia with these disruptive edits, you will be blocked from editing. CodeTalker (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]