User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WP:AVOIDVICTIM

WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not say that when a victim has spoken publicly and self-identified, that one should delete her name -- even if it is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Rather, just the opposite, it says to make certain it is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic in such cases. You seem to be editing as though it says something it does not say. Also, when someone reveals their name publicly, there is -- apart from this guideline - little reason to not include it. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A4E8:34C9:2261:4F37 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Including the detail of her identity would prolong the victimization. Wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular websites in the world, and the inclusion of her name on this website should not be as being the alleged victim of sexual assault. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on James Harden

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 18:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Baroness Joanna Shields page

My name is Laura and I work for Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields, a baron, businessperson, and former British politician. The page about her was recently tagged for COI and advert issues due to some poor edits made years ago. I posted here regarding my desire to address the substance of the tags with a re-write or heavy trims, to remove the promotional content. I was hoping you might be willing to chime in on the proposed trims and/or the suggestion for a rewrite. Let me know. Best regards.~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You can get an editor to review and implement your suggestions (if appropriate) by tagging them with an edit COI template on the article talk page. See WP:MAKINGEREQ. Even though I know nothing about the Baroness, wikipedia biographies are not meant to be CVs or resumes so anything sourced to them or speaker-submitted bios should be removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

Hi, @Morbidthoughts. I ask for your help with the page, which is in a rather deplorable state, and for trying to make it more neutral you are immediately accused of something. Is it generally normal to remove tags about disputed neutrality immediately, without waiting for the end of the discussion? Colaheed777 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Bakri

Since you were one of the last people to be involved on Talk:Adam Bakri, I'd like to ask that you take another look. There's some stuff going on such that I'm reluctant to take unilateral action. DS (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Theo Lengyel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theo Lengyel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Lengyel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Yngvadottir (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Pornography Barnstar
		For your work in WikiProject Pornography Demt1298 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Marking WP:NAC

Greetings! First off, I'd like to say I very much appreciate your comments and edits. I don't follow anyone, but I count you among the editors I enjoy running into. I also agree with your recent discussion closure at BLPN. My ask here is to please add to your closing comments and edit summaries: WP:NAC. Not everyone knows how to find User Rights, and routine, good-faith, and much needed closures might give someone else the wrong impression. I'm quite certain I've forgotten to tag myself before. My wall of text is now heavier than the actual issue, so I leave it there. Looking forward to more BLPN times, thank you, and cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Marking NACs is just not required nor consistently followed outside of deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Amouranth

Greetings. I have a query regarding the omission of her DOB at this discussion. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello, I'm TheDarkKnight433. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Abbas Ansari have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Why did you delete the whole source claiming the statement. Also, there is live discussion going in the talk page. Don't revert it without concensus. It's a vandalism of article. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is currently being discussed at BLPN.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Dispute on Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Alexfotios (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

T.H.

I'm getting to the point where I either need to step back from this Henyard nonsense or take it to AN/I. I will be ignoring the page unless there's something there that didn't come from SecretName101. Please tag me if anything develops that's actually worth engaging in. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, scratch that, I'm just walking away from this one. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Article related to Abbas Ansari

I noticed that you recently reverted the entire article of Abbas Ansari. I wanted to inquire about the reason behind this action. The article was previously edited by a user named goodfacts, who is a known sock of someone and has been banned. The information in the article, including details about Abbas Ansari's involvement in multiple murder cases and the arrest of his wife, was sourced from reliable articles and is already included there. Furthermore, the structure of the article was concise and provided clear information. However, the recent edits made by the banned user resulted in fragmented sections and compromised the overall clarity of the article. Considering these factors, I believe it would be appropriate to revert to the previous version of the article for a more coherent presentation of the information. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Hii, I noticed that you recently reverted the entire article of Abbas Ansari. I wanted to inquire about the reason behind this action. 2402:8100:384C:2AA8:1505:7A5E:857D:D6D0 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are the blocked user, User:TheDarkKnight433. Biographies of living people are to be written conservatively. The information about the murder is not directly supported in the citation given, because it seems to be referring to Mukhtar's murder cases. WP:BLPCRIME applies to accusations about his wife so the information is meant to be limited. Discussion and consensus must be reached at Talk:Abbas Ansari before reinstatement of any disputed edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

What about adding 'Indian gangster turned politician' or "Indian gangster and politician" in front of his dad's name? I can provide you with the source, and it's also written on Mukhtar Ansari's page that he was a gangster first. Additionally, about his wife, she was not accused but given jail by the court, so this has to be added. Also so many details about his great-grandfather were also added, isn't that supposed to be limited in the background, and why are the details of his father just so small? Also, there are too many short sections. It's already mentioned twice in the introduction that he is a politician from some constituency, so what's the need to add another representative column just to add this thing once again?

https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/politician-mukhtar-ansari-sentenced-to-years-in-jail-15430361.htm

https://www.etvbharat.com/english/state/uttar-pradesh/nikhat-ansari-released-on-bail/na20230819111610431431881 2402:8100:384E:3694:1505:7A5E:857D:D6D0 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

I'm giving you reliable sources and you didn't answer my question. 2402:8100:384E:3694:1505:7A5E:857D:D6D0 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CHOICE Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Maa chuda laude k baal. Now go to the Google translator and translate it mf. 106.79.237.248 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Naw, too much work per WP:CHOICE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding reinstatement of website link on page

Greetings to you. My intention for removing the website link on that person's page was that it directed users to a website that sold pornographic performances by that person instead of directing them to a website she maintains. I have no interest in championing censorship, but that link was an advertisement, not (necessarily) a relevant link. Perhaps my original statement could have been worded better, but that was my intention. 203.212.241.19 (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh. Thank you for clearing that up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

BLPN

Thanks for cleaning up that duplicate David P. Weber entry. I didn't realize that one had been created prior to mine. JohnInDC (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Accolades section in a BLP?

Thanks for your previous clean-up work on Dominic Ng. Do you think its Accolades section violates WP:NOTCV. - Amigao (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As long as there is secondary reliable sourcing about the individual accolades, it's not really an issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

BLPN - self-identifying individuals

Hi, I just wanted to give you a heads up that there are categories such as Category:American people who self-identify as being of Chumash descent, so if you remove "self-identify" type language, there is likely an associated category. I fixed the categories for Lorna Dee Cervantes and Stepfanie Kramer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As an FYI, I am going to putter away at these categories to verify if the category applies or not. I am starting with Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I've been incrementally reviewing the biographies under the categories to ensure that they strictly comply with Wikipedia's core policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Boxing rankings

Greetings. You've removed a few of these sections from boxers' articles on the premise that such rankings need secondary sources, yet on tennis players' articles (e.g., Novak Djokovic) they seem just fine to use an ATP ranking—a primary source—with no secondary sources. Out of curiosity, are WikiProject Tennis doing things wrong too? Likewise for snooker players (e.g., Ronnie O'Sullivan) they use a primary source from their tour. The rankings used in boxing are not even affiliated with the boxers themselves, so what would be inappropriate about them being used as primary sources? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sports articles are riddled with trivialities of what editors think is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Why are those specific rankings included if they are not mentioned in relation to the boxer in secondary reliable sources? WP:WEIGHT is policy and inclusion can be seen as promoting and endorsing the rankers like whatever hell the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the equivalent argument to ATP rankings (who the men play for) would be the sanctioning body rankings. Boxing articles seem to address this by noting the boxer's title history. Those are also widely reported by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, and that's why I mentioned other examples because I was interested to see a rationale. I've long considered the myriad rankings in active boxers' lead a bit of a mess, but they've been a mainstay for years so I hadn't given them much thought until now—in fact I'd completely forgotten that I once brought it up at WikiProject Boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Third paragraph of Naoya Inoue's lead—zap altogether? I'm thinking the pound-for-pound stuff could stay, as that's a very regular talking point in boxing circles, but the divisional rankings are really cluttering things up across myriad articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, even the pound-for-pound stuff since it's not static and would require monthly updating. It's better to mention when he achieved the number 1 ranking to keep that static, and I'm guessing that independent sources would have noticed that too. The last sentence also seems like synthesis about being the only Japanese person to win those awards without independent sources confirming these. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This user seems to love 'em. Is it time to get an RfC going at WikiProject Boxing or just put the feelers out there as a general discussion? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it's previously been discussed on the wikiproject without input from the broader community, a RfC is indeed appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have initiated discussion.[2] If there is not enough feedback from enough users, there should be a RfC follow-up right afterwards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Your recent editing history at Robby Starbuck shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:DTR Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If I am missing some kind of magical diff that makes it all make sense, you better tell me about it. Otherwise, that would still be a way to WP:BAIT me into a WP:BOOMERANG over at WP:AN/3. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't need any kind of magical dif to raise WP:BLPBALANCE and implement WP:BLPUNDEL since you did not gain consensus or repaired your edits. You are free to gain that consensus on the article talk page or BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)