Jump to content

User talk:Mzilikazi1939/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Replaceable fair use File:Welcome to lovelock.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Welcome to lovelock.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Welcome to lovelock.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Welcome to lovelock.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Undid revision 699706266 by Id 1948 no explanation of change, therefore POV"

This is not a valid reason for reverting an edit. You've got a new user who didn't make an edit summary. That's related to them being a new user. It has nothing to do with POV editing. If you've got a problem with the edit, name it. In that way the editor has a chance to respond intelligently. If you can't explain how a particular edit violates NPOV, then don't be disruptive and revert it. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This was not a 'new user'; he has been editing since 2011 and should know by now that it is usual to give reasons for any changes. I will give him reasons for the deletion as he asks. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I dont think being a new user or not is the point (yes did join in 2011- but contribution has been very minimal so can be classified as an inexperienced user). Undoing a change someone spent time on without an explanation can be a bit frustrating since Im not sure what I did wrong. I think I made some relevant points (and irrelevant ones like you pointed out). Giving the page number puts in perspective why this is seen as the largest arabic work on this subject (you can expand this to include any language- I dont think there is a collection of stories relating to misers which reaches this extent... not that it matter but it puts things in perspective). 800AD or 800CE (as I changed it to now) is to avoid confusion (are we talking 800AH islamic calendar or 800 CE). Hope you find the revisions I made more satisfactory. Id 1948
The latest changes are much better and I have sent public thanks. The final sentence of that paragraph (which was not yours) is a bit ambiguous, verging on ungrammatical. Would you care to clarify it for me? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

New article: Dadaglobe

Given your contributions to related articles, I thought you might find this article draft also of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dadaglobe I welcome any suggestions or edits you might have to improve the page. This is only my second Wiki article and I'm still learning the ropes.Gaw54 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Response left on your Talk Page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mzilikazi! I'm in the process of incorporating your suggestions. I hope that these will facilitate getting the article approved quickly. The related exhibition is opening shortly. Can you help me figure out how do I link to an image on Wiki Art, http://www.wikiart.org/en/max-ernst/the-chinese-nightingale-1920 (I'm leaving this message on both your talk page and mine, since it is unclear to me if the response on my talk page gets to you.)

You can link directly from the article to Wiki Art or, perhaps better, make it a reference.[1] I should say, however, that I couldn't see any picture there, so you better check that you have the right URL. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wiki Art

Atlantis

Thank you for your edit. Informative! 15:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Atlantis sections

Hey! I was wondering, how are you gona do the artistic interpretations for Atlantis? Winterysteppe (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Painting and sculpture (quite a few originally in the popular arts article where they didn't belong) plus a small orchestral music session. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The dog who carries to his master’s dinner round his neck

A tag has been placed on The dog who carries to his master’s dinner round his neck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A10: A new article The dog who carries his master’s dinner round his neck has since been created with the same content, and this page title would not make a suitable redirect.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. I see that you noticed the problem first and blanked the page before I saved my edit. Please disregard the above notice as I have now tagged it for deletion as an author request. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

UK English??

This is a terrible edit. What on earth do you mean, "UK English"? Which bloody language do you think I speak? Did you just revert my edit because it came from an IP address? How ignorant. You owe me an apology. Best wishes 82.36.105.25 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

A cardinal rule on WP is that editors should be civil to each other and moderate in language. Even administrators have had their accounts blocked for breaking it. If you don't want the same to happen to you, I suggest you take more care in future. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The boy who cried wolf

Hi, I have redone the see also section on the boy who cried wolf and re-added it as a new title called in popular culture, the same way A Christmas Story is formatted. the section on popular culture in a Christmas story is not referenced, so the boy who cried wolf doesn't need to be referenced neither.

Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Poor editing does not set a precedent. What is virtually an unreferenced list is against the WP:POPCULTURE guidelines. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, here is what I meant to have sent you, as you see this is not referenced and it is accepted. Not everything has to be referenced User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In the 1983 film A Christmas Story, the main character, nine-year-old Ralphie Parker, has his mouth washed out with Lifebuoy soap after saying the F word while helping his father change a flat tire. It also appears in In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash, the book on which the film is loosely based, though in the book, it is a punishment for bald-faced lying.

An episode of The Hogan Family had Valerie Hogan deal with her son Willie's bad language by scrubbing his mouth out with dishwashing liquid.

In Victor Victoria, King Marchand soaps Norma Cassidy's mouth supposedly possibly for talking too much.

An episode of King of the Hill had Hank Hill deal with an abusive co-worker by dragging him into the bathroom and scrubbing his mouth out with soap.

The Powerpuff Girls episode called "Curses" has a scene where the girls are soaped in the mouth by the Mayor's orders for cursing.

In the Missing Episode of Dexter's Laboratory, "Rude Removal", Dexter accidentally creates evil versions of himself and Dee-Dee who spout swear-filled rants in front of their mom. When the regular versions trap them and feel like all's well, they spot Mom with a large bar of soap waiting to wash their mouths out.

You still don't get the point of an encyclopedia, do you? A mere list of situations that have been a cliché for two centuries or more is not acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mzilikazi1939. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Metaphysical poets

Hi! I'm here about a revert of one of my edits. I am not very well versed in using the mobile interface, and I apologize for not checking the article more fully: I only read through the lede and the section on the origin of the name, which used lowercase, so I erred on the side of avoiding caps. I did not intend for it to be vandalism. Would it be appropriate to change the caps in these sections to reflect the rest of the article? Thanks! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. There's a discussion about the inconsistency of the use of capitals on the article's Talk page and I decided to redress that. The problem was that Johnson used small case in his article, I suspect because he was using it as a philosophical term. However, by the time the term Metaphysical was used to characterise a 'school' of writers, it began to be capitalised. So I decided to follow that usage whenever the literary school was being discussed. It looks inconsistent on a cursory reading, it's true. Maybe we should transfer this discussion to the article's Talk page?
The same problem would arise if one were using the word 'baroque', incidentally. The imagination of the Baroque poets is baroque, just as the reasoning in Metaphysical poetry is often metaphysical! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I was not aware of that. Thanks for telling me. I went to this page after reading an article on metaphysical poets from 1934, which used the lowercase form throughout and probably biased my judgement. Hmmm, a discussion to the talk page might be more appropriate. In hindsight, I should've probably posted there.
I never know what capitalization to use for art movements...it seems that every style guide has different instructions. Oh well, at least I'm learning. Thanks again! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fredegond Shove, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herbert Palmer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice has been taken

…that much of the material you added to the closing section of Sejanus, while citing the primary sources, in its interpreting those sources without reference to secondary sources, approaches being your original work and perspective, rather than being WP:VER scholarly opinion. Perhaps you can take some time, and add some scholarly sources, supporting the statements you added back in 2013? Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Aesop

Is there any way you would accept the edit? Apparently a reference would help. I could look for one sometime.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And I found "Gideon" here— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a chance. The item was blatantly off-topic, since the article is about the 'historical' figure of Aesop, not about fantasy and alternative reality characters. The reference you finally gave made that more than clear. Look up the Wikipedia guidelines on relevance. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham#Art patronage of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham

I went to the article Cavalier to see if there was a category there that I could add to the new article Art patronage of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham and noticed the edit I mentioned in the previous section. I have just traced the author of the majority of that text in the new article and it was you. Please see Talk:George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham#Art patronage of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Tool to help build citations

The reason I prefer to use {{reflist|30em}} instead of {{reflist|2}} is because if the page is narrow the two behave in a similar way, but the "30em" will create more columns as the page gets wider while the "2" will remain as just 2.

I have converted full inline citation into short and long one in . These tools may be of help to you create citation:

However they are not fool-proof and the output often has to be fettled.

-- PBS (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, moderately useful but, as you say, far from foolproof. It doesn't give the correct page no., that has to be adjusted. It doesn't give the place where published, only publisher which, in the case of the 18th century reference I tried it on, is not useful. Moreover, I'm not convinced of the use of separately listing books from which only one citation is made. I think I prefer to stick to the academic practice of citation that I'm used to. On WP, hovering the mouse over the reference number brings up the footnote information and the note can/should then take you directly to the page(s) referred to at a click. Anything more seems unnecessarily complicated, given the fact that the academic community is never going to accept Wikipedia as a valid source because of the way writing it works. Handiness and brevity are what one requires online; creating complication simply defeats its purpose, surely?
As for creating columns, I'm not sure you're right about your method creating them automatically. There were 40 short one-line citations inefficiently requiring manually scrolling down. You're techy, obviously, and seem more dazzled by the cleverness of what can be done than attentive to the needs of readers. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Before I edited the page the format for {{reflist}} was {{reflist|30em}} with the edit you made at 16:40, 14 April 2017 you changed it to {{reflist|2}}. I presumed you did that for a reason. From what you have written above, it is not clear to me why you changed "30em" to "2".
The list was too long and, for reader friendliness (which is my main priority) I prefer double columns where items are short. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you follow Manual of Style guidelines then you ought to use the consistent style that other use in the same article (so that the citation have a consistency for the readers of the articles). You do not have to use templates, but you ought to use the same style (appearance), and you should not leave raw urls in citations. There are three fundamental style:
  1. Long citations in ref..tags.
  2. short in-text citations called Harvard or (bracketed) citations, with long citations in a "reference section".
  3. short citations in ref..tags with long citations in a "reference section".
Once a consistent style has been chosen other editors should add new citations using the same style, unless there is agreement to change the style. All this stuff is described in the citing sources guideline.
In the case of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham there was no consistent style before I edited it. There is now (WP:CITESHORT).
If you take the last two cations you added:
They are long in-line citations, yet in the article all the others were short, and they are not in any particular format. If you simply run them through the two tools I linked above with no manual editing they come out as:
  • Norbrook, David (28 January 2000). Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics, 1627-1660. Cambridge University Press. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-0-521-78569-3.
  • "History of Newnham Paddox, in Rugby and Warwickshire - Map and description". A Vision of Britain through Time. 15 April 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2017.
These is much closer to a standard format than the ones you created by hand and can be created at a push of a button. The page number in the Norbrook citation is not the same as you gave manually, but it matches what is in the link you provided. Of course you do not have to use such tools, but I think that they do make life easier because they semi-automate the creation of citations.
I notice that you often use ff (as in this case you used 23ff) why not give the precise page numbers eg 23–25 instead?
-- PBS (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I prefer 'ff' because it's the convention I'm used to; because it allows the reader to follow it up as far as s/he wishes; because Google doesn't always include the whole page-run; because WP:CITESHORT is a good rule of thumb. As for standardising format, that's a stupid guideline to bring in given the way WP is 'edited' and your way isn't particularly user-friendly anyway. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

As a side issue this talk page is large! Please consider archiving old sections. This can be automated by cut and pasting one of the examples in help:archiving#Automated archival

--PBS (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not the first to make this suggestion. Give me a SIMPLE, non-technical explanation of how that's done, and I'll do it. Let me illustrate my dilemma by quoting lines from Byron's Don Juan -

Coleridge explaining metaphysics to the nation;
I wish he would explain his explanation.

- Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

copy and past the following near the top of your page 

{{Archives|auto=long|search=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}

The {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}} will automatically be converted into the page on with the template sits, so you can use this for any page you want to set up automatic archiving. For an explanation of the the other parameters see User:MiszaBot/config

-- PBS (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did what you said and only got that template sitting in plain sight above the list of contents. Then I tried adding the page name after SUBST: - No change. I seem to remember reading in the commentary that it takes four days to kick in. Isn't just leaving it like that a Security risk? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I've edited it, because the idea was just to copy what was visible before editing. Not the bits that were hidden before editing, which displayed the text, but did not allow it to be active. It will now work. The bot tends to pass over the pages once every 24 hours or so. -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, muchas gracias, tusen tak (etc). It's something I've wanted a long time. I'll keep an eye on progress. Mzilikazi1939 (talk)
I am not sure why editing the top of the page caused it to double. It must have been some sort of editor glitch because it happened again when I repeated the process. So Now I have reverted out the changes made by the glitch and I have cut and pasted the text above up to the top of the page. I have checked it and it appears to be correct. Lets see what happens over the next 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Instead of trying to alter your copy of the instructions, which had caused a doubling of the text, I copied the instructions from here to the top of the page by copying the instructions in none edit mode and then pasted them to the top of the page in edit mode. The archiving should now take place some time over the next 24 hours or so and then repeat as new sections are create and old ones date. With the parameters as set, there will always be the five most recent sections on this page. If a new section is created and the oldest section has not been edited for 90 days the oldest section will be archived. -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, that's a relief. As you say, we'll wait and see. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
All working as expected. I have manually archived a section called "A page you started (The Beaver (fable)) has been reviewed!", because the person who created it did not include a signature with a time stamp and sections without a time stamp are not archived by Bots. -- PBS (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serafino dell'Aquila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rondeau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mzilikazi1939. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 07:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 07:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You Have Me Mistaken For Someone Else---In the Main

I take issue with the message you left on my talk page earlier today, 16 June 2017 (USA Eastern Time). It reads thus, in regards to the film article Escape to Athena (a critical topic of discussion these days, eh?):

"You're new to Wikipedia and seem unfamiliar with editing guidelines. Two of them concern the needlessness of additional information in the cast list (which is best kept to the plot summary) and the need for references. You have reverted corrections to the article made in line with these with no explanation, which also ignores editing guidelines. Please do not repeat your disruptive behaviour. It could get your account blocked. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)"

You seem to be intently invested in this Article, since you have been pushing me around concerning a simple minor edit I tried to make twice last month. On the other hand, you have only been involved in that article since March 2017. So what is your problem? Other than mistaking me mostly for someone else, I cannot imagine.

I am old, I am trying to contribute every now and then to Wikipedia, and I have been a newspaper editor and professional writer for years. I am sorry for not being up to your standards, which, according to you, means that I am not able to quite understand some of the very specific guidelines of Wikipedia. However, your attitude does not make me very interested in doing much else for Wikipedia readers.

You reference "...the needlessness of additional information in the cast list" ? You have mistaken someone else's activities for mine. I made no edits to the cast list that I can recall. If my account is connected with THOSE edits, then someone has hacked my account and is using it somehow, or it was wrongly attributed to me. I did not make any such edits.

And "the need for references." Again, I did not do what you think I did.

I have only made two MINOR edit attempts to this article. They both had to do with adding a simple line about the motorcycle chase in this movie. The first time, I added it at the end of the introductory paragraph, and it was stricken as a POV problem. I then added it to the "Reception", since the motorcycle chase was well "received" as one of the fine action sequences in the movie, and one of the best scenes of that sort on film anywhere.

You are not the sole "guardian" of the information about this film. There should be no one, including you, complaining about this kind of mention of this chase, when similar car chase scenes in films such as Bullitt and The French Connection, and similar motorcycle chase scenes in The Great Escape are critically noted for their fine craftsmanship in action filming, and are highlighted or mentioned in their Wikipedia articles---and rightly so. Besides, I attempted to reference the sources for the acclaim or admiration of the motorcycle chase scene in Escape to Athena. I may have failed to understand how some websites can be used as references and others cannot. For that I apologize. Perhaps instead of knocking down my edits, you could have simply helped fix them...you know, in a spirit of cooperation.

I don't actually understand your criticism "You have reverted corrections to the article made in line with these with no explanation...." Again, unless you mean the motorcycle chase, you have me mistaken with someone else. I only made two attempts to simply mention the acclaim of the motorcycle chase scene.

You admit I am new, but you still chose to chew me out, to call my edits "disruptive behaviour", and then threaten me with blocking my account. "Disruptive" to who? YOU? So if I try to do something constructive and contributory, but it's not quite exactly done the right way, (by your reckoning) then I get accused and threatened? I am guessing that asking you to either explain yourself or retract your threat is also considered by you to be "disruptive behavior" and worthy of "getting [my] account blocked," eh?

I'm taking this to you directly this time, going on the possibility that you're just having a cranky, bad day, and it's also quite clear that you have most of your complaint applied to the wrong defendant. But if you don't like my edits, just say why or fix them yourself. But don't call it "disruptive behaviour" and threaten to block my account. If you take me up again in such a manner, I will report you in kind.

Perhaps from here on out, you can be a bit more civil, and we can be friends. Perhaps we can collaborate to improve the article in question. I never hold grudges. I accept your apology. Mluklu7 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You Still Have Me Mistaken For Someone Else On Cast Edits

You still have me mistaken for someone else on the cast edits for this movie. I did not do them.

And I have not been in breach of "good faith". I am simply trying to get it right. I look stuff up. I read the guidelines. I am trying to accurately get the special programming characters right.

And yes, I am also glad that you do not have the ability to block my account. I am not the one erupting in a fit of pique (since my trying to add a single simple line to a movie article). I simply took issue with your mistaking me for someone else, and then accusing me of "disruptive behaviour" and threatening me with a blocked account. How was I to know you are not an administrator?

As for the motorcycle chase mention in Escape to Athena, I'm sorry, but there is no substantive difference between mentioning its cinematography value and mentioning the same thing from the other movies I referenced. It is not merely an individual point of view. And if you think so, why don't you go solve the same problems in those articles?

I do not have enough time left in life to mess with characters like you. I do appreciate guidance and help, but not from someone who acts as though they are grabbing me by the scruff of the neck and rubbing my face in it. I am way past that time in my life. So fare thee well. Mluklu7 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm BlackJack. I noticed that you recently removed content from For a Few Dollars More without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do NOT remove sourced information without stating a valid reason. Furthermore, your actions amount to a breach of WP:AGF. I suggest that you need much more knowledge, understanding and experience of WP policies and guidelines before you denounce other editors as "disruptive" and start laying the law down about guidelines such as WP:FILMPLOT. Jack | talk page 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I treat your self-righteous, self-important message with the contempt it deserves and suggest you put WP:AGF into use yourself. In addition, guidelines are there to make the encyclopaedia succinct and if you decide to overlook them, then it is up to you to provide a valid justification rather than WP:FINAGLE. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You are now also in breach of WP:CIVIL and I think you had better do something about your attitude if you want to continue being an editor on WP. Guidelines are there to provide guidance, not to be read and applied pedantically. In any case, you were wrong because the section had less than 700 words so you were bang out of order in citing FILMPLOT. You removed sourced information without giving a reason for it. Perhaps we should take this to WP:ANI?
And on the subject of WP:FINAGLE, I suggest you take a long hard look at points 2, 3 and 4:
  • Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
  • Asserting that the technical interpretation of Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
  • Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
Seems to me that these three points describe your actions in respect of WP:FILMPLOT. Jack | talk page 12:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Escape to Athena, you may be blocked from editing. Do NOT remove content that has been sourced without providing a satisfactory explanation; the sources appear to be reliable and so the content has been restored Jack | talk page 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo

Hi. A while back we had a discussion about what to do about "Cultural references" sections in London station articles, and general consensus is that they could all do with a bit of a trim. I've finally got round to looking at London Waterloo station in some depth, and the section there seems to be awfully big. Do you want to have a look first before I get to it, because I think I'm probably going to get my scythe out when I get that far; at the moment I'm still fleshing out the 19th century history, which is a bit bare. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy in asking. I really welcome your proposal and will back you up if you meet the kind of bullying I've been exposed to lately. The only really significant items I'd be inclined to retain are the explanation of how the station came to be called Waterloo and mention of the Cuneo connection (if his statue is still on the station). Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Autumn Journal (1939).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Autumn Journal (1939).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 09:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Autumn Journal (1939).jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Baltics (poem). I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mzilikazi1939/Archive_3&oldid=1051210413"