User talk:TheClubSilencio

Endorsement

Hi, I understand your message that people in leadership positions should go first. Would it be alright if I went last then? I am both a FL elected official, although it is a local utility, and an activist especially during the 2018-2019 water issues that our good Governor helped us with. This is why I am so loyal to him. He got us two task forces, and got us SB710 (2020) Clean Waterways Act. I have met him in person 3 times, the last time was with the FFRW where my chapter RFWTV also won an FFRW award for making over 160,000 phone calls for his gubernatorial reelection campaign. I would like to start a DeSantis Club in The Villages.

 Redtideswfl (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Hi TheClubSilencio, I want to re-emphasize I do not think you have done anything wrong other than things a normal new editor encounters but wanted to make you aware, if you were not already, given your interest in American politics. As the elections move forward, it is very likely articles will be place under various restrictions due to disruptive behaviour, if they are not already. Active restrictions will be noted on the article's talk page. For an example, see Talk:Joe Biden with the "Warning: active arbitration remedies" template at the top. If you have a conflict of interest (i.e. have an affiliation with the topics you edit) then you need to declare it and follow the rules outlined (again for awareness, not that you do). I will leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia. If you ever have questions or need help with anything, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as I read the pre-formed template message (in blue) I am not sure it is helpful to new/new-ish editors so would like your feedback. What are your reaction/thoughts/questions, if any? S0091 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TheClubSilencio!

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, S0091 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Cormac McCarthy

On 14 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cormac McCarthy, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please review the definition of minor edits at WP:MINOR before marking things as such: A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. A large percentage of your edits marked as such should not be. Rift (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jennette McCurdy, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 02:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is a book by Jennette McCurdy a poor source for an article about her life? TheClubSilencio (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheClubSilencio, see WP:primary and WP:ABOUTSELF. Autobiographies or what someone says about themselves must be used with care and most often are not appropriate to use. For example, likely fine to use to support things like who their influences are because only they would know that and is not likely WP:UNDUE but not okay to use to describe themselves or their work (at least not in Wikipedia's voice). S0091 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, if somebody says they've quit making music, isn't it fair to say they've quit making music? She hasn't released anything since then, and she says she's retired. When Daniel Day-Lewis said he was retiring from acting, people accepted it. Shouldn't we do the same thing here? Her music career has been inactive for a much longer period of time than her acting career. TheClubSilencio (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That content belongs in the body of the article, not in the lead. If Martin Scorsese chose to stop making films in 1990's does not change the fact what is he most largely known for is making films. You would need to establish Jennette McCurdy was never a notable singer which is highly unlikely but at he end of day you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already did that. But by your logic, the "former actress" designation should be removed, too. Either she's a former actress and singer or she's an actress and singer. Choosing to label her a former actress but not a former singer makes little sense, especially since she's best known for acting and not singing. TheClubSilencio (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion in in progress. You just posted the discussion today and it seems you may gaining consensus. A formal WP:RFC is given at least a month so be patient (not I think this will take an entire month). S0091 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Scare (podcast), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antifa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tucker Carlson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. George's School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Knapp edit

I reverted your edit of Alexis Knapp's DOB because while Rotten Tomatoes is an acceptable source when it comes to films and reviews however it's not a journalism site and it's main businesses is film criticism. If you check the last discussion as well as the current Rfc, you'll see that many other editors feel it's not suitable for BLP.[1][2]

As per WP:BLPPRIVACY there are only a couple acceptable options when it comes to WP:DOB. A truly reliable Secondary source(IE a magazine such as Los Angeles Times or New York Times. And preferably multiple of these) reporting their exact DOB. Or a social media post from the subject themselves where he or she confirms his or her birthday and preferably either his or her age or YOB in the same post as well. Failing either one of those, they should be kept out of the article for now. Kcj5062 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About whether or not a source is reliable

Finding a source that's actually reliable is easier said than done. This situation is not unusual. While many sites contain a subject's DOB, the question is, "Are those sources reliable?" Because some are WP:USERGENERATED, which means anyone might have added the content. Some give no indication of the origin of their content. Some web scrape from other sites with no regard to the reliability or accuracy of that content. Wikipedia is supposed to provide content that (a) comes from reliable sources and (b) can be verified by checking with the cited sources. Failure to do so undermines the credibility of the particular article and, to some extent, the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Which is why Wikipedia doesn't simply allow just any thing that an editor comes across as a source. Some celebs have never actually publicly disclosed their DOB and because as already mentioned many sites web scrape without doing any fact checking, they end up having falsified DOBs online.

The above paragraph applies to all content on Wikipedia. but when an article is about a living person, an additional policy applies WP:DOB is clear: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The only way we editors can demonstrate such publication is by providing citations to reliable sources. If we don't have a reliable source for a living person's date of birth and full name, that content should not appear in the article.

To see if a site is trustworthy enough to use check and see if it has the correct DOBs for these celebs. John Leguizamo, Tanya Roberts, Judith Hoag and Edie McClurg. Within the past year or so their true DOBs have been revealed(1960, 1949, 1963 and 1945 respectively), however TVinsider as well as many other sites have the incorrect ones listed. Which makes it seem like they're just putting down what other sites have listed and questionable to use for bio details like Rotten Tomatoes, Times Of India, Allmovie, Thefamouspeople, Tribute.Ca, Moviefone etc.

The UPI source you submitted for Alexis Knapp was indeed a good enough source. Kcj5062 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James R. Bath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natchitoches.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IL-14.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Dunleavy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm glad you removed those comments. If you make them again you are likely going to get blocked indefinitely--not just for transphobic comments (which have no place here) but also for BLP violations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheClubSilencio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've never owned another Wikipedia account. This is complete nonsense. I don't even have the same IP address as the other user. TheClubSilencio (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns below. Yamla (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Except you do have used the same IP(s) and you have made similar edits, and in at least one case the exact edit, as UncomfortablySmug. I would say the standard offer is available to you but, given your edits that have been rev-deleted, you should just find another hobby.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]