User talk:FlightTime/Archive 21

The following page 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 page.

Simbi Khali was in fact, in Coming To America with Garcelle Beauvis. I'm lookingbatvthe movie now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoney443 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmoney443: I'm not saying that it's not true, I'm saying you did not source or explain why you made the change, please see Edit summary and Reliable sources. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply to my question on this (now here) though my concern was about stuff moved from Archive 4, and now no longer available, rather than  the other way round.
However, it probably makes more sense to raise the issue there, so I  have done so. The query is here if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply to my question on this (now here) though my concern was about stuff moved from Archive 4, and now no longer available, rather than  the other way round.
However, it probably makes more sense to raise the issue there, so I  have done so. The query is here if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hlist on Bon jovi because there was only one item in the list, it was not needed. Bowling is life (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bowling is life: Why are you using two time stamps ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in all fairness, Dennis Rodman's participation in The Apprentice (U.S. season 8) in 2009 in the sentence previous to mine is also completely unsourced. In the sentence after mine, Dennis Rodman's venture in Big Bang in Pyongyang is also completely unsourced. What allows those to stay and causes mine to be removed? All the information I included in my sentence is available on the Wikipedia link I have in my sentence at The Apprentice (U.S. season 13), as is the information in the sentences previous to and after mine. There is no external information that has been written; because, of course, that has to be sourced. Please undo your reversion of my edits if you agree. Thanks. Subbupedia95 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Subbupedia95: If other stuff is wrong then fix it, don't add more "wrong", "unsourced" information, that's just silly and disruptive. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc --

My name is Val Verse and I am the Head of Operations for Bo Svenson's MagicQuest Entertainment. That is, I work for Bo Svenson and you can readily verify this by looking at the MagicQuest page on IMDb or our website magicquestentertainment.com. I am duly authorized to make updates on his behalf.

I am writing regarding the four posts/changes you made to Mr. Svenson’s Wikipedia page, in particular, the photo and bio change.

The bio that you changed was submitted some time ago. It was verified and accepted by Wikipedia.

The changes you made are incorrect as well as damaging to Mr. Svenson, privately as well as professionally.

Further, we own the copyright to the photo you deleted and I attempted to repost. It is his official IMDb photo and is used ALL over the internet.

The photo you posted is not only out of date by many years, it is one for which we do NOT have a copyright. Unless you or Wikipedia has a copyright for that photo that you can send us, it should never have been used.

You also reversed all my edits to his biography which coincide with his IMBb bio ^[1], replacing them with outdated and incorrect information.

Again, this is damaging to Bo professionally as it does not reflect his current status as an actor-writer-director-producer.

We ask that you reinstate all the edits that I had made as well as replace your photo with his official photo.

Valvvwuzzle (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valvvwuzzle: first, now that you've admitted a professional connection with the article subject, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing that article at all as you do not own the page and all changes to an article needs to be cited by reliable sources. As far as the images, the copyright owner (in most cases that's the photographer) needs to give wikipedia permission to use the images before they will be allowed to stay. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would you like to reply to my point raised here [1]? I am curious about what you response would be. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to pester you about this, but I feel like we had a miscommunication there. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, just trying to figure out exactly what was going on, as it was a bit confusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: No problem, I just did not expect any of that. I'm not a content editor, what I use it for is marking pages as patrolled as I'm using the other account more often and it's weird at first not being able to mark a page. - Mlpearc (open channel) 06:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

could you give me some hints as to how to deal with the "post-progressive" thing? It clearly shouldn't be used as a noun, and I would like someone else's input on whether it should be placed in infoboxes or even presented as a music genre. Extensive discussions with User:Ilovetopaint led to nowhere and all changes I introduced resulted in edit wars. By the way, I found out that an article on this topic was deleted in 2006. Chilton (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilton: I'm not too sure about these type of problems, but there's Requests for comment. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I've posted an RFC here. Chilton (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Led nowhere" — lmao! I gave you 4 citations that refer to "post-progressive" as a type/style/form/subgenre of rock/progressive rock music. It's right there in the lead, the very first footnote you'll see.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint and Chilton: If you two want to discuss further, please do it else where. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You reverted some changes on Iron Maiden Wikipedia page. May I aske what was so unconstructive about the changes I made? The information I added was factual and unbiased. All the best JOLLY GREEN GIANT — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOLLY GREEN GIANT (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made some edits on the Iron Maiden (NWOBHM band) page, and the information I added was factual, so why did you revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOLLY GREEN GIANT (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JOLLY GREEN GIANT: This is an Encyclopedia, we don't do alleged for starters. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your opinion about the disco and Fallen Angel has no reason and there are no sources of it. We never played disco. Maybe pop rock. But the disco is a certain style of bass and drums play, have never been used Uriah Heep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.150.105 (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Something seems to have gone wrong when you used OneClickArchiver at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien with your mobile account. You archived some content to User talk:Example/Archive 1 which is apparently just a predefined example page. I've never used this gadget but it seems you need to select the proper target page before hitting the "go" button. The correct archive would have been Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 5 so I reverted your edits. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: Thank you, I pull the template from User:Mlpearc/Workshop, just overlooked changing link to the intended target. Again thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a specific Speedy reason. However, there is WP:NOBAN and WP:USERTALKBLOG. I've asked the user if they object to me blanking the page. I think we should give them a couple of days, then go to WP:MFD ... richi (hello) 20:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard yet, but in the spirit of NOBAN, I've added the Userpage template and collapsed the rest ... richi (hello) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed ... richi (hello) 09:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the message regarding the edit. Perhaps I have a odd situation that can be resolved. While I dont have a source to my edit, it is something I have observed with my own ears while listening to the recording. The faint harmonica can be heard on all official released stereo versions of the track. As was said in the same wikipedia article, the version they recorded was indeed that of Barry Mcguire, whose tape was not wiped completely, so by conjecture it is not impossible for this (my edit) to happen.

Thanks for the time,

Starbond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.197.62 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@67.176.197.62: Sorry, personal knowledge is not acceptable on Wikipedia, it can not be positively verified. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a watchlist is. Sundayclose has never edited that article and somehow went there first thing today and reverted my edit? Just out of the blue? I put more details in the ANI report I posted. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Justeditingtoday: So ? Your argument is silly, that's not how a community wiki works, good luck at ANI. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have added back maintenance templates as per your notification.

Note that the Reuven Bar-On is a self-promotion article created by the Bar-On himself. He is not a notable or important researcher and the biography should be removed IMO.

For the time being I am reducing the article to information that can be verified by references. So I am going through the references and removing non-verifiable information from the article.

Kind regards

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it don't matter. I'm !voting for the merge. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I added important information and fixed the grammar/coherency of an article that was in extreme need of it. This article, "Lady in Black", is an article that (most likely) is not visited at all, and the song is one that, in many opinion, deserves a proper article. The author who originally wrote this article has mediocre, average writing and coherency, and even though the article has been marked for page issues for more than 3 years, nothing has changed about it. I merely made grammatical changes and rewrote several confusing sentences, yet you rudely threw all of it out the window, including fairly obvious genre additions, so I kindly ask you to revert these necessary changes I made. Thank you, Bryce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hecoxx (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hecoxx: There are two reasons for my revert, 1) No references, you changed a lot of wording without updating the references to support the new claims. 2) You changed genre's without consensus which is considered disruptive. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet investigation page against you has been opened up by Paramdeeptung. Take that as you wish, though having stalked monitored the situation with this editor for some time, I think it might be time to take some sort of action. You may revert this message if you wish to. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. To go from "eponymous", an already poncy word, to even more faffery with a Wiktionary link.. Why not just use the most literal term, namely "self-titled"? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, it's just used that way on many album pages. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Simple Wikipedia either :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I won't revert over it, nor am I advocating a Simple Wikipedia approach, but my goodness it reads like such a prissy way to open an article lead. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that "it must be used" I'm just pointing out it's more commonly used than you seem to think. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	...for all your work to keep the article Fidel Castro neutral and sourced, against an enormous onslaught of POV editing from both sides, and doing it pretty much single-handedly for a long time there. MelanieN (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Thank you, you're not too bad yourself - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep an eye on Jhaydn2016. Says here that he's going to "change [the request template] to "no" how many times [they] want". From the looks of the message, it also appears that they won't try to get the consensus you told them to get. Maybe some "helpful tips" may be of use. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I have 7 days to improve the article so that it is clear that it should remain. In doing so, I would also include text which shows that she is not just the President's daughter but has reliable citations showing she is her own person.

Or do I dispute this by removing the tag (the tag is not clear). Shorwak (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mlpearc... You sent me a message stating you reverted my changes (once again) to the RATT page, after the consensus was made by Sabbatino and, if I should make it similar to Jack Russell's Great White (which I was in the middle of doing), you reverted my changes. You also tried to accuse me of being in an edit war, which I am not. A consensus was made. If you do this again, I will have to report you. I will also document this within the talk section of RATT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijares (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dijares: You've misunderstood, you do not have consensus. Continued replacement of your edits without clear consensus will end in you being blocked. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just adding citations, like I was told to. There was no need to revert me.PeterMan844 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is discussed at FFD. I invite you to the discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find a way to contact you, but you seem to have "Email this user" disabled. How can I contact you, preferably privately? — Gestrid (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: I have enabled my email, feel free to throw me a line. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll do it in a few minutes when I'm on my laptop instead of my phone. — Gestrid (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Gestrid (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi,

I'm aswering you from a message I had on wikipedia, that I'm quoting right now :

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Eagles (band). If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I just wanted to say that I feel a bit disturbed myself. How do you consider that the change I made on the article about The Eagles (editing the Timeline) is a "disruptive edit". First, if I did it, it is because I thought and I still think that it was a good change. Second, I have done many timelines on wikipedia. If you take a look at all the others, you will notice one thing, among many others : when a member of a band leaves the group and is replaced by new member, the new member comes just after the ex-member. Does it seems silly ? Actually, no. It seems logic. SO, when I saw the Eagles' timeline, I thought : "Hum, Léo, take a look ! When Bernie Leadon left the band, he had not been replaced ! But, I want to understand ! When Randy Meisner left...LOOK ! He had been replaced by Timothy B. Schmit !! There might be something wrong...NO ! There IS something wrong ! Because Joe Walsh REPLACED Randy Meisner !" But in the timeline, he is not just right after him...I'm a bit confused...I shall say that I am a bit disturbed. So you know what, "Mlpearc" ? I changed it. Simply. Take a look at my contribution. I just changed it. Nothing bad, and certainly not, a "disruptive edit". Maybe my mistake, and I apologie, was not to tell why. I regret. But it seemed so easy to understand. My apologies.

So, if you consider that I "continue to disrupt Wikipedia", then effectively, "[I] may be blocked from editing".

The last but not leat ; it seems that there's a kind of a gestapo watching the changes on the Eagles' page. I won't do any changes on this page, even though and according to my demonstration, my contribution looked objectively good. However, I appreciate the "good faith edit" but I still don't understand then the warning.

No need any anwser, you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.222.205 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@88.172.222.205: All changes to a timeline should be discussed with other editors who watch the article and come to some kind of consensus, making changes to suit your personal opinions are considered disruptive and it is a very good habit to breifly explain your changes. Cheers, - Mlpearc Public (powwow) 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FlightTime,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

The page 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 page.