User talk:Oompaloompa1971

This is Oompaloompa1971's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Insufficiently referenced. (Also note that NY Post and The Sun are not considered reliable sources.) No real evidence of notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oompaloompa1971! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This BLP needs to be fully sourced. Some portions (especially the total earnings) are unsourced.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft copy was submitted to AFC on 26 April in order to contest the cutting down of the article to a redirect. The decision as to whether to have a free-standing article should be made by a consensus process, such as AFD. My advice is that any editor who thinks that there should not be a separate article should nominate it for deletion, and Redirect can be an Alternative to Deletion.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at List of Jeopardy! contestants, 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant), you may be blocked from editing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find and replace?

It looks like you've been going through the articles on Timothée Chalamet and Denzel Washington and substituting instances of "he" or "him" etc. with the actor's name (and sometimes the other way around). What is the purpose of these edits? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun redundancy. Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing it. Endless repetition of the name is pointless, bad writing and makes for a poor reading experience for the reader. Not repeating the name (as long as it is clear who the 'he' or 'she' refers to) is infinitely superior. In other observations, please stop moving the punctuation on quotes (per WP:LQ), and stop moving "however" to the start of a sentence: in nine out of ten times, it's a grammatical faux pas to start a sentence with 'however'. you should also look at WP:NUMBERS, and not mix up number as numerals and words in close proximity. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! — Gor1995 𝄞 18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please add an edit summary with your edits, to explain why you are making changes. Your edits have been reverted because it was not clear to other editors that they were an improvement. _signed,Willondon (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Newton

In your edit to Cam Newton [1], why have you changed a number of 'access-date' parameters to a seemingly arbitrary date further back in time? That parameter is supposed to record the most recent date the source was checked. Because there were so many of them, I reverted the edit again. Your edit summary says "Added content because it is important [...]" Maybe redo just the adding content and its source part. Other unexplained parts of the edit will likely get the whole thing reverted again. _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possessives and punctuation

Hello. I have noticed that you have been changing possessive nouns that end in an "s" by removing the apostrophe-s. Please note that possessive nouns that end in an "s" do indeed receive the apostrophe-s. The only time the apostrophe-s is inappropriate is when the possessive noun is a plural noun.

As well, per MOS:LQ, the logical quotation style of punctuation should always be used in Wikipedia articles. milladrive (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop moving periods and commas inside quotation marks. Wikipedia uses the logical style of punctuation. MOS:LQ milladrive (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brad Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notre Dame Fighting Irish basketball. 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) 06:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"At the age of" and punctuation

Hello. I notice you have been changing age lead-ins from "age ##" to "at the age of ##". Those extra words are superfluous and thoroughly unnecessary, and are known as "weasel words".

For instance, "so-and-so did something at age 20" is correct. However, "so-and-so did something at the age of 20" is incorrect.

You also continue to incorrectly move commas and periods, disregarding Wikipedia's rules of punctuation and causing other editors extra work. I ask again that you stop doing it. Thank you. milladrive (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see the manual that shows Wikipedia's rules of punctuation? Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I have posted it for you...

MOS:LQ milladrive (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brad Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Conference Finals.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun removal?

Please stop replacing pronouns with their referents indiscriminately, in addition to the errors mentioned above that you continue to do, including the possessive issue. Remsense诉 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I stop replacing pronouns with their referents indiscriminately? Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply does not instill me with confidence. Remsense诉 19:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but you have not really answered my question. Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not sure how to answer the question "why shouldn't I make certain edits indiscriminately?" Because it makes the prose worse, I guess. Remsense诉 19:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...but then using pronouns make sentences sound repetitive. Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Why should I stop replacing pronouns with their referents indiscriminately? Because discrimination is required to separate improvements from disimprovements. I see many of your replacements as disimprovements, partly on the grounds that pronouns are useful tools to avoid the awkward repetition of a name throughout an article. Now that you are aware of disagreement from some editors in the community, another reason to stop indiscriminate replacement would be to avoid polarizing your participation as antagonistic. _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But don't pronouns cause awkward repetition at times? Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. Choosing a name or a pronoun is always a debatable value choice, perhaps depending on frequency of use, rhythm (e.g. alternating; name first in paragraph, pronounds thereafter), or just plain how it sounds or looks. Copyediting is an art. In these grey areas, it's important to be sensitive to feedback from other editors. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns again

Like others have said above please stop changing every pronoun to the persons last name. It's overkill, we know the persons last name already, no reason to keep repeating it. Yankees10 01:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was already the last name, then the pronoun, then the pronoun, which sounds redundant. Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the third instance, either one would be redundant. The pronoun is shorter. _signed,Willondon (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American game show winnings records

Hi, would you be willing to explain why you cut the all-time winnings list from 25 down to 10? I initially expanded it because I believed there were enough with totals over $1,000,000 to justify expansion, but wanted to hear your reasoning first before I reverted it back. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am somewhat curious to know the reasoning, I would just undo it. milladrive (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 is more common than top 25 Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"More common" how? The NCAA uses a top 25 to rank the best Division I football and basketball teams. Wikipedia has a Top 25 Report. Heck, the NBA career scoring list on this site extends to the top 50. When there's enough data to pull from, I think it can be worth going beyond the top 10 and including some of the former record holders who are already mentioned and referenced throughout the article's prose. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WatchMojo, they do top 10. Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, plenty of websites do "top 10" lists all the time. I just don't think top 10 lists being "more common" than top 25 lists is a strong enough argument on its own to justify gutting 60% of a well-sourced winnings list from an article. As there have been more notable winners over the years, it's my opinion that we've outgrown the need to limit it to just the top 10. That's all. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

You should not indiscriminately replace a pronoun with the surname of the person the pronoun refers to. It is incorrect to do so and you are harming many articles. I see I'm not the first person to say this.

You should also always describe what you are doing with an informative edit summary. I see I'm also not the first person to say this. Can you confirm that you are reading and understanding messages about pronouns and edit summaries? Whasha (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using pronouns make sentences sound repetitive, doesn’t it? Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should stop making any changes to pronouns, because you clearly don't know how to use them correctly. Whasha (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to use pronouns correctly Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three sections

Your talk page has three sections regarding pronouns. The Kyle Allen page showed that 'Allen' was added and swapped a few times. I think the point the other editors were trying to get across were the 'pronouns'. Yes, numbers under ten should be spelled out ... but adding Allen while doing it is a slap in the face, you know, sneaky sh**. You do know there's a revision history? Please try to hear them out, they mean well. Give them that much at least. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you would like to add what you do, regarding the 'pronouns', just put it in the edit summary. At least there's a heads-up. Thanks in advance. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judson Bergman (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Judson Bergman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]