Jump to content

User talk:P,TO 19104/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7


Bitcoin Classic

Hi, would you like to also comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Classic? --Ysangkok (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Welcome, and great work! Ed6767 talk! 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Henry Beecher (disambiguation)

Hi, thank you for looking out and seeking to move this page to a proper title. Having pages at proper titles is a HUGELY important matter, since we need to be able to count on pages existing where we'd expect them to be.

I've actually moved it back to the previous title, and I thought you deserved a proper explanation from me why I did this. You're correct that tons of disambiguation pages end with (disambiguation), but this really doesn't apply here. We put (disambiguation) when there's a primary topic, e.g. the disambiguation page for things called "Alabama" is at Alabama (disambiguation) because the primary meaning is clearly the US state, so Alabama covers it. Conversely, if there's no primary topic, the disambiguation page doesn't get the (disambiguation). Since there are two important meanings for "Georgia", Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state), we have the "Georgia" disambiguation page at Georgia.

In general, page titles need to be as simple as possible while conforming to our page-title standards. This is the basic reason for not using (disambiguation) when there's no primary topic. In this case, neither of the Henry Beechers is primary over the other, so the disambiguation page best goes at Henry Beecher.

Thanks again for working to improve this project! Nyttend backup (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nyttend backup: Good to know! Thank you, I did not know that. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, you're quite welcome. Established editors generally know this, so I was pretty sure you were new, and I just wanted to help you fit into the community better :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Hi PTO, I hope you're having a great life so far! Would you mind commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base58? I would appreciate it immensely. Speak your mind. Ysangkok (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not sure how the talk page works. However, my edit and description of the Mental Illness subheading for John Salvi was justified and backed up. It has been conclusively proven that John Salvi never suffered from Schizophrenia or and mental illness for that matter. Because of this, the presence of a Mental Illness section in his wiki is completely disingenuous and misleading. I would prefer you did not revert information back to it’s false state. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:8680:1C70:7926:CF2E:6FD6:CBE6 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@2601:8D:8680:1C70:7926:CF2E:6FD6:CBE6: You can remove that content, you just have to provide references. Deleting the whole section was inappropriate since you deleted a major section in the article. Before you delete something, try to be constructive. By the way, this source confirms that he had mental illness: see the part where it says "long term mental illness". [1] . P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The source that you referenced is not reliable and is contradictory. It first claims that Salvi never suffered from mental illness and that addresses that his defense lawyers argued that he suffered from schizophrenia for an insanity defense. However, as I have already stated, this has conclusively found to be untrue. It is fact that Salvi never suffered from mental illness. The existence of a mental illness section is disingenuous, and the removal of disingenuous info is by definition constructive. It’s not up for debate. I would appreciate if you ceased to spread false info regarding the matter.
Also, it is extremely ridiculous that false articles that don’t even support the notions in the wiki are being used as references in the first place, and that these are being used in defense of the false info, especially when they are contradictory. You have also been repeatedly ignoring the information and points I have provided. Quite odd. Please don’t bring an agenda onto this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:8680:1C70:7926:CF2E:6FD6:CBE6 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
He was only considered not mentally ill by prison officials. In many articles about his death, they mention he was mentally ill. Here's another example [2]. Maybe insert a sentence that says "Although considered mentally ill by the general public and his parents, prison officials did not. Cite: [3]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The “general public” believing someone to have mental illness does not prove they had so. Further, the section claims he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is false. The prison wardens and the doctors assigned to him declared him to be mentally sane multiple times. This was also the courts decision, as is why the insanity plea was unsuccessful. Why do you insist on spreading false info? Take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:8680:1C70:7926:CF2E:6FD6:CBE6 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You have no references to support your claim other than what I gave you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have begrudgingly compromised in only removing the section that claims he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and adding a questionable citation. I believe this to be more than fair, however these edits have still been removed. Why would I need a citation for the fact that he was never diagnosed? That doesn’t even make sense. There is no citation that states he was diagnosed, therefore it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:8680:1C70:7926:CF2E:6FD6:CBE6 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
As for the “compromise”, which is more a censorship of fact, I have some issues. For the article you referenced, you used that as proof for “diagnosis” of mental illness. One, schizophrenia was never mentioned, and should be removed. Two, a diagnosis was never mentioned. It is noted that psychiatrists believed him to be mentally ill, but this is nowhere near the qualifications of a diagnosis of mental illness. These are long and elaborate processes, and there is no evidence such a process ever came to fruition or even took place. It would perhaps be more suitable to say he was never diagnosed, but defense and prosecution psychiatrists still believed him to be mentally ill. I’m going to lay back on this issue for a bit. Hope you make the correct decision and edit this accordingly, as to avoid any further censorship.
Yes, he was diagonsed; see [4]. No, the encyclopedia article does not mention that, but it does not matter since one of the previous sources mentions the diagnosis by the defense. I have since made changes to the sentence which would be our comprimise. Please do not message me any further regarding this topic. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pathetic censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:8680:1C70:7926:CF2E:6FD6:CBE6 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
For dealing with anon - Harsh 01:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

More Bitcoin articles nominated for deletion

I thank you in advance for your input!

--Ysangkok (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weaponization of finance

Hi, you relisted this even though it was clearly ready to be closed as redirect. I recommend that you do not attempt to administer AfDs until you have substantially more experience on Wikipedia. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, per the unnecessary relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Watson (entrepreneur) despite clear and unopposed consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos:@Sandstein: Oh shoot, I was afraid I was going to make a mistake like that when I started relisting those discussions. Do you think it would be a good idea for me just to relist discussions next time where there's only the nominator and another person corresponding? That probably wouldn't be so hard to point out. Maybe something similar to my relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 5#Crazy Girls Undercover. Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated :) . Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Sandstein that it might be best to wait to do behind-the-scenes work at AfDs (including closures and relists) until you have more experience here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Gouten source

Hello,

I let comment in order to improve the page Alexis Gouten. Not fully sure to understand your comment. It would be highly appreciate if you can help me.

with many thanks Yves Damien (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yves Damien: Hi, as I said before, your sources only give a trivial mention of Alexis Gouten and are mostly primary sources. This is my rationale for deletion. Thank you, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC).


Hello again, many thanks for such quick answer but I've reread every source and all are talking primaerly about Alexis Gouten and in relationship with the subject the source refer to. For exemple, source 1 is a full interview about him and the topic of distribution in watchmaking.

Could you let me know which source you have check in order to correct it or find another one ?

Many thanks again for helping contribute better.

Yves Damien (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yves Damien: All right, I have made a review of every source that your article contains and how they're reliable/unreliable. Please see: User:P,TO 19104/sandbox3. If you have any questions, you can come back here.

Hello again,

Great ! Many thanks I will check on that !

Yves Damien (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Aberystwyth Town Edit

Hi,

I edited Aberystwyth Town FC's "Squad" subheading to update the current playing squad. The previous version had split into 2 tables and included information from the previous season, such as players no longer at the club.

I'm aware that I deleted a part of the page, however this was done in good faith and for good reason. Grateful if you could advise or amend.

2A02:C7F:AEA5:CC00:8C30:B568:4C1D:292 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:AEA5:CC00:8C30:B568:4C1D:292: Your edits seem to have been in Good Faith, thank you for alerting me to my mistake.

Articles for Deletion response

Hi.

Please avoid using simply "Delete, per nom and above votes." in deletion discussions. As the name implies, these are discussions, not votes. Please remember to "...explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." (from WP:AFDFORMAT). HiwilmsTalk 18:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:2020 Bitcoin Scam.png

Thanks for uploading File:2020 Bitcoin Scam.png. 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. Masem (t) 19:15, 17 July 2020

"Primary" sources

Hi P,TO. I obviously agree with the AFD, but wanted to reply about one thing you stated. PCGamer is undoubtably a reliable secondary source. While focused on the video game industry, it is independent from both Riot Games and League of Legends. While I understand the position that "industry focused" or "specialist" media sources might not be considered "independent" from broad topics in some contexts, the broader community does accepts them for these purposes. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Ok, thank you for your feedback. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC).

Proper citations

Hi, P,TO. Thanks for your contributions to Helena, Montana. However, I think your work would greatly benefit by your using templates for your citations. Above the edit box click on "v Cite", then on "Templates v" and then on the appropriate specific template (such as "cite news" for the Independent Record). The words "Independent Record" should be placed in the "Work" box so that they are properly italicized. The "Last name" and "First name" relate to 'people and not to newspapers, and the "+" plus sign lets you recite multiple authors of the same article. Other fields are self-explanatory. Click "Insert" to insert the citation into the article. Please use this useful template, so that others don't have to follow after your work. Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@RCraig09: That's pretty funny, yeah that is totally wrong! Sorry if there was a problem, the citations were created automatically using the visual editor. I'll check the citations over. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's is an example of one correction that should be made: "diff"
It's important to include the publication date, and more than "good form" to include authors' proper names and official publication names.
Technically, archiving (e.g., at archive.com Wayback Machine) is not required, and many editors here don't bother (it's extra work), though as Wikipedia ages archiving becomes absolutely critical for verification. Also, archiving avoids the need to include an "access-date" (access date being nearly useless information). —RCraig09 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi P,TO 19104! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Good Article?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations, revisited

I see that you are trying to improve your citation practice, but there are still sixty (60) references that show "retrieved July" in the Helena, Montana article, virtually none of which provide a publication date. Publication dates are important. If the visual editor makes this practice difficult for you (many editors have complained about it), I strongly suggest you learn to use the conventional editor box, using its citation template, as I already detailed to you at what you have so quickly archived at User talk:P,TO 19104/Archive 3#Proper citations. You can provide a date simply by filling the date box in the citation template. Reminders:

It's important to include the publication date, and more than "good form" to include authors' proper names and official publication names.
Technically, archiving (e.g., at archive.com Wayback Machine) is not required, and many editors here don't bother (it's extra work), though as Wikipedia ages archiving becomes absolutely critical for verification. Also, archiving avoids the need to include an "access-date" (access date being nearly useless information). 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
—RCraig09 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@RCraig09: Thank you, I will make fixes to those. Please don't be offended I archived this talk page, as I didn't like looking at Teahouse notification I got, and not to worry I did see your earlier advice about using the Wayback Machine. Thank you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for starting to add publication dates to citations.
Be aware that it is not necessary to include each and every citation field; so language=en is seldom included in articles in which all references are in English.
Also, it's a wasteful distraction to include unused fields such as url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|. It's best, as I've mentioned, to take the time to actually include the archive information. Archiving a reference avoids the need for a "retrieved on" date which is not generally useful.
Declaring url-status=live isn't helpful unless you also provide an archive-url and archive-date! The url-status=live designation misleads readers into believing the link is live even if it has become stale (dead link)... another reason to perform actual archiving.
I hope this advice (not intended as strict universal rules) saves you a lot of work and heartache in the future. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@RCraig09: I did not include the information about the website being "live"; when I was using the VisualEditor it automatically inputed "live" into that field. I doubt that would bring up any problems, either. I'll spend some more time archiving urls and checking over the citations. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

Vandal Alert Help request

Hello Good sir PTO. Here’s the issue I’m talking about. User 95.145.94.68 (talk) is continuously vandalises the pages of coronation street characters list and the Emmerdale characters list. Can somebody please ban him? He’s also swearing at June Gloom and bullying him and other administrators if they’ve delete his vandalism, using threatening behaviour, can you get somebody to take care of him please? Check out what he’s doing 2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:10CF:E997:1DA:DBDF(talk) 21:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:10CF:E997:1DA:DBDF: Reported to WP:ANI. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you PTO for the support. 2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:10CF:E997:1DA:DBDF(talk) (2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:BCC1:B22F:34A4:BF7F (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC))

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P,TO_19104/Archive_3&oldid=1232700385"