User talk:Nodiggity59

Welcome!

Hello, Nodiggity59!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 18:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from The UnXplained 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 your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on The UnXplained. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear evidence of bad faith. People are only posting negative information about the show's reception. While not everyone likes it, it clearly has been in production for years and continues to get reviews. Any positive information posted gets removed by these actors.

What more evidence do you need of bad faith?

I will continue to post positive information — watch it get removed.

Certain individuals have an agenda to only allow negative impressions of the show. Nodiggity59 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what we mean by bad faith at all. WP:AGF is about editor interactions. Your reply continues to show bad faith on your part. You need to stop. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are new so you won't be familiar about our policy and guidelines on sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for Rotten Tomatoes audience scores and IMDB in general. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont't be small. Don't side step the issue I brought up.

You have a clear case of people trying to tear down a show because of their personal feelings. Use whatever words you want.

Talk about bad sources. Colavito? Google that for 60

seconds and you'll see. Also, the characterization and cherry picking of the quotes shows heavy bias. The ACTUAL score of the reviews is actually pretty favorable in those articles. Regardless of the cherry picked quotes. And the archaeologist is NOT a critic. It's just one woman's opinion. Has no place in "critical review", she's not an entertainment critic. Can't see how one individual's opinion is more valid than aggregated reviews, but I guess you know best?

Petty semantics of "bad faith" (seriosuly, who cares?) aside, the question here is whether you will allow fringe users to dictate how the show is characterized in the page.

You need to stop dodging this question. What's it gonna be? Answer that. 2600:1012:B127:8CCF:53:1EE5:673E:293 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dont understand why Susan Levanthal, Kim Egan, and Rob O'Brien keep getting removed as EPs. This is a fact, they are EPs in the show from Day 1. 2600:1012:B127:8CCF:53:1EE5:673E:293 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit logged in. Did you not read my edit summary? Doug Weller talk 18:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should complain at WP:ANI. As for Jason Colavito he’s had a university press book published. And if you don’t like criticism by people who aren’t entertainment experts you’ll hate Ancient Apocalypse Doug Weller talk 19:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nodiggity59, the article content is better discussed at Talk:The UnXplained. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Nodiggity59. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page The UnXplained, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Since you are a new editor you may not be aware of the encyclopedia's COI policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The UnXplained, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

It seems you have ignored the advice and warnings here, and have continued adding credulous content with notoriously unreliable sources. Did you check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, as you were urged to do above, before adding Youtube and the History Channel here ? It's an alphabetical list of sources which the community has discussed, and is easy to use. Please listen to experienced editors when they explain Wikipedia's rules to you, instead of attacking them. Next time you use a source which appears on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list and has been deemed unreliable you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]