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.
Thank you for your work on the Gus Grissom article. I agree with your enthusiasm of ensuring the dates meet with the MDY rule for this article. However, it is unnecessary to change the format of dates within sources and doing so invites confusion. The date formatting rule determined for each article refers only to the information within the article, not the sources. Again, thank you for your contribution to the Grissom article. MarydaleEd (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see you changed my edit of Radioland Murders to "Radioland murders" on the entry for George Lucas. Radioland Murders is the grammatically correct version and how it's listed everywhere. I think it's important to be true to this. Thank you. Joe12Hawk (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime:
Hello. Could you please review the final warnings you issued me and remove them if you find it appropriate? I believe there was an error in communication. I'm new to editing, fairly, and I've never had disciplinary action taken before yours. I'd be glad to conform to guidelines, you just had issued quite a few warnings. I will gladly provide sources that show that the claims I removed from the articles were objectively false, I did not realize removing unsourced information required a source. For example, regarding the page on Bart Ehrman, I can gladly show you citations from many sources, including a statement from Dr Ehrman himself that he does not want people to perpetuate the idea that he coined the term. I had very little space to summarize my edits and I didn't realize removal of such things required sources.
@AgentKozak: Exactly, discussion is needed, but not here. You need to open a discussion on each page you intend to add to, this will give interested editors a chance to chime in on the genre and the reliability of your sources. - FlightTime (open channel)16:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. But there is usually not many editors on stub articles. So, it may not get any discussion. Are we to leave it in ambiguity? AgentKozak (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi What exactly I am doing is that I trying to ad the movie appearances for Etch but i Don't know them all Can you help Me adding all his movie appearances how are We going to find them all. Ethan169 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which way disruptive?? These are half dozen citations to the same book repeated throughout. A waste of space and misuse of the template. The use of the Template:R is for the purpose: joining all those same citations into a summarized version by specific pages. I added new references with clear pages to the article, a task that is critical for W. I am not biting your invitation to an edit battle. I will give you a chance to revert your edit so I can continue the clean-up of this and other articles. I'll fix the refname to fit the convetion. You have to assume good faith before you shoot around freely as you have done today. That ... is what is truly disruptive. Until then, Rjgalindo (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a citation error in the refname tag. It would have taken me 2 seconds to add letters to the numbers and have it all cleaned up. Hit the "undo" link so I can go back to work. Rjgalindo (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was curious about the recent reversion to the links I added to From Dusk till Dawn (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=From_Dusk_till_Dawn&oldid=prev&diff=1159370091). I'm not particularly against the reversion, mostly just curious about the reason given. Comparing my thought process to the section on Overlinking in the policy, I did not find them to be at odds. Specifically, the links I added were the items I was genuinely curious about and wanted to find more information on while reading the article. As far as I was able to check, those terms were not mentioned anywhere earlier in the article. The links I added were no more dense than the first paragraph of the article. If you do not feel too strongly about the reversion, would you mind re-adding the links?
Mr. Neo Anderson (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read that section carefully, especially under the title "What generally should not be linked", and I still have trouble understanding which category my links fall under. That's why I was hoping to get some clarification. Mr. Neo Anderson (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion/section is closed. Continued (if needed) on AgentKozak talk page
The following discussion/section 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/section.
Hi,
you left a message on my talk page but I've not had a response yet. Can you let me know how to proceed?
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 page.
Hi there. Have you a link to a wiki advice-page supporting your deletion of musical-instrument brands from the "Personnel" section I added to the music article linked above? The advice I consulted, [[1]] ("Personnel" section), seems to support the inclusion of brand names, as it uses the Hammond brand of electric organ as an example.
The following discussion/section 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/section.
@Ponyo: Sure, why would you put that on a article that's going to edited rapidly anyway, and the current event covers the changes anyway. It wasn't put because of editing, it's advert. - FlightTime (open channel)22:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the template specifically states that "it warns readers that reliable sources are only reporting that a person is presumed deceased, or that the death is just based on these reliable sources only receiving unconfirmed reports or rumors." You removed it stating it the template is not for new articles, and I'm asking you for the policy or guideline that confirms such as opposed to your opinion.-- Ponyobons mots23:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I asked where it states that the template you removed is not for new articles, which is the reason you used in your edit summary when you removed the template from multiple articles. Also, I don't understand what "It wasn't put because of editing, it's advert" is supposed to mean.-- Ponyobons mots23:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: This is my usual edit summary when removing that template Activity levels do not warrant use. This template is used to alert editors of rapid changing edits, it is not used to advertise or confirm the death itself. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, do what you will. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well even the expanded edit summary is inaccurate. You've reverted the addition of the template more than once on a single article, so be cautious of 3RR if other editors (not me, I'm off to enjoy a long weekend) restore the template because it's applicable and your edit summary "This template is not for new articles" is a preference, not a guideline.-- Ponyobons mots23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.
I recently made a change to the part of the description of a scene in the movie "Weird Science". It was described as vandalism. I do want to state that no vandalism was intended, but if that is how it came across, I apologize. I merely try to be accurate and precise in my words. In the current description, it states that that the character Chet was turned into a "blob". In the movie, which was a 80s movie for teenagers, he was really turned into something quite specific. I didn't want to use the exact term of what he was turned into as it is an explicative. I replaced it with the non-explicative term - or at least I thought it was - which was more accurate than "blob" and conveyed the joke that was in the movie but less crudely. Again, no vandalism was intended, just accuracy.
I have restored your deletion of categories of this article. I understand neither the deletions nor your summary. Best regards, Doug butler (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recently made a change to the part of the description of a scene in the movie "Weird Science". It was described as vandalism. I do want to state that no vandalism was intended, but if that is how it came across, I apologize. I merely try to be accurate and precise in my words. In the current description, it states that that the character Chet was turned into a "blob". In the movie, which was a 80s movie for teenagers, he was really turned into something quite specific. I didn't want to use the exact term of what he was turned into as it is an explicative. I replaced it with the non-explicative term - or at least I thought it was - which was more accurate than "blob" and conveyed the joke that was in the movie but less crudely. Again, no vandalism was intended, just accuracy.
Not sure what's going on, but the image changes to Ryu and Ken had nothing to do with edit warring but about fixing the articles to use better art? Was there some confusion?-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlightTime, that's unfortunate to see that you accidentally reverted hundreds of your recent contributions when you intended to revert the edits of that IP you reported to AIV. Well, I can come and help undo those accidental rollbacks if you'd like :) . — AP 499D25(talk)03:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a number of blocks and article protections. In fact I think I went overboard and did much more than I needed to, because I misread dates on some edits, and thought the problem had been going on for a long time, which I now realise it hasn't. Anyway, maybe that will have put an end to the problem, but if not then of course please feel welcome to contact me again. JBW (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your post at User talk:5.77.74.41, where you pinged me, and your post at User talk:5.11.103.236, where you pinged PhilKnight, asking for a range block. Unfortunately, no range block big enough to cover all
of the editing is possible. Even just counting edits from IP addresses such as 5.11.103.236, 5.77.74.41, and 5.179.171.168, the block would have to be 5.0.0.0/16, which the mediawiki software can't do, and even if it could, it would be out of the question because of the enormous amount of collateral damage. And that's not even considering other IP addresses that have been used, such as 176.62.158.70. As you have probably seen, originally I tried a number of partial blocks on combinations of IP ranges and particular articles, but the editor has simply moved over to other articles, so that achieves nothing. Already the number of articles involved is big enough to make protecting them all an unattractive proposition, and a partial block can't cover more than 10 articles, which is nowhere near enough to be effective. I have now put a few total blocks on some IP ranges, but I am unwilling to do that for a very long time because of likely collateral damage, and in any case past experience suggests that the editor may just move to other IP ranges. Protecting articles is likewise unlikely to be very successful, since, as I said above, the editor just moves to other articles. Unfortunately, there is no good solution in this situation, and the best I can offer is blocking new ranges as they come up. It is just possible that doing that will eventually cut off all the IP addresses available to the editor, and if not then we can hope to at least cause sufficient inconvenience for the editor to significantly reduce the amount of editing they manage to do. Naturally, please as always feel welcome to contact me again when you see more of this editor, and I'll do what I can. JBW (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to discuss your concerns, but not here! Please take it the article talk page. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section 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/section.
This album had "The Temple of the King" song. I saw German and Spanish covers but didn't see Turkish cover. I added its Turkish cover with references. However, my addition was unfairly deleted. You found it wasn't notable per WP:IPC. I don't share your opinion and want to correct your mistake. Yours sincerely,Cemsentin1 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.
About removing my message
Why did you remove my recent message immediately without answering? All that edits were not wrong. I feel responsibility for what I'm doing. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your concern about OR. I put in a reference... there are many more out there so if you want to, please improve the reference. I do feel like it's a disservice to the post-Cars section to not even mention such an extensive production career, it was stunning to me to see it omitted on the page and it would strongly benefit from some info, however limited. 72.219.162.127 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Clapton
You just gave me a warning for "inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content". Have you read the BBC source? I added "deliberately provocative" as that's what it states. Punk artists used Nazi imagery for shock value. A previous editor had removed a long sentence so I had trimmed it to this. Tub st (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tub st: I saw a single edit with no reference and no substantial edit summary, you added the word "deliberately" to a BLP without a source, so I reverted it. A page search of the source, shows no mention of "deliberately provocative" or Clapton for that matter. - FlightTime (open channel)22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source is about punk rock (which appears in the Clapton article). The BBC source states: "they were being provocative". And my comment was in response to the one made just prior to mine (Ashmoo, on Siouxsie Sioux). Tub st (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full BBC passage; "Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols was often photographed wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with a Swastika, and in the late-70s Siouxsie Sioux of Siouxsie and the Banshees sometimes wore a Swastika armband. They were being provocative, not expressing any affiliation with the ideology of the Nazis, and trying to get up the noses of their parents." This is why I added the words "deliberately provocative" (which had already been in the article, but in a much longer sentence which Ashmoo had just removed. I put back in a much shortened form for context). Also, by just having "they wore Nazi outfits", with no context, the source becomes redundant as context is what the source is about "Strange things artists have worn on stage and the reasons why"). Tub st (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so can you remove the vandalism/defamatory tag from my talk page since it's been seen not to be that? And I'm ok to make the edit? I'm not critical of material being removed as I understand the need to keep out potential vandalism, plus at a glance my edit summary clearly wasn't sufficient. Tub st (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tina Yothers
I removed her birth name because of what's stated under WP:BLPPRIVACY. It's the same reason why Wikipedia doesn't include dates of birth without any secondary reliable sources. The policy may not had been around in 2018. Kcj5062 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcj5062: There are thousands of pages with birth names, are you going to edit them all? I'm sure, there has to be a specific reason to remove it, it has to be a page by page issue and some kind of official request is needed. - FlightTime (open channel)21:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already provided you the reason. And I've actually have been editing other articles that have unsourced birth names and unsourced dates of birth. Other editors have as well. And I don't doubt there's many other articles without sources. You seem to have no issue with editors removing her DOB since it's not sourced. But I'm not gonna remove it again as I don't want to get into an edit war. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection is a distant possibility. Admins are much more likely to provide protection for a set period of time. Typically, you would list one of the target articles at WP:RPP and then add all the others to that one request. You will get a longer stretch of protection if you show how long the disruption has been happening. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File move
I saw that Twitter login.png was moved to X login.png, this seems like an odd change as the website is still named Twitter, which can be seen in the image itself. I know you were just the one to make the move and it didn't seem like you requested it, but I didn't see a discussion on the talk page or other place to respond to the move. - Odin (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you, if I feel the original name is more accurate, is it appropriate to request it be moved back? After leaving my initial comment here I saw how the request was made on the page itself. - Odin (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least based on the move discussions here and here, I would say the consensus is that it's too early to change the name from Twitter. Which I think can reasonably be applied to the currently named File:X login.png and File:X Mobile.png - Odin (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion/section 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/section.
Hi, I have been searching through music pages and clearly corrected a lot of erroneous dates for LP and single releases that were present on Wikipedia.
To undo all of this work with one stroke seems very unreasonable. Contact Binksternet if in doubt of my intention or sources. I'm helping Wikipedia as much as possible, citing Martin Strong's Discography book, Recordlabel promo-material, other books etc.
It is common knowledge in the record industry that releases in the UK are released on Mondays and Fridays and in the US on weekdays, certainly not on Weekend-days. So those claims I tried to correct as much as possible.
As well removed and corrected dates that showed the debut on the charts. This ofcourse can't happen, since the release has to be bought first by the public.
@Ray1983a: Where are all the sources to support your changes? Yoiu need to supply a source with your changes, if the source is already there, then leave an editsummary like....Per existing source, see [url of the target source] or something similar. - FlightTime (open channel)16:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well, the point is, you now removed edits, where I clearly cited the BPI or the RIAA, which are the representing bodies of the UK and US record industry. These are reliable.
Also, anyone can take a look at the sites for charts, and see if an LP entered the charts on say, on 8 May, that the release date is not 8 May. This is just simple logic, and means somebody in the past placed a wrong date on Wikipedia. Ray1983a (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.
Categorization of people sort by surname
Hello FightTime. Let me take you in time travel to 2016. I was wondering if you can figure out what did you mean by replacing in an edit the link [[Wikipedia:SUR#Sort_by_surname|WP:SUR]] with [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Sort by surname]]? Because WP:SUR checks out but your addition doesn't.
Hey, I'm unsure how LTA works, in other words, if I am allowed to create such a page by myself as a regular editor. Sorry if all of this was obvious and answered somewhere else. In any case, here is the sockpuppet investigation of the long-term cross-wiki abuser I believe a page would benefit this project, because they have not stopped disrupting Wikipedia for a long time. Even just recently, one of their accounts (User:Baran Agir) was globally locked, through which they were active in a foreign language wiki, where they spent much of their time editing whilst the "period(s) of silence" (when they were not visibly active on the English Wikipedia after a block). So, they will probably or have already started a new account. Might be more appropriate to file this on Meta if it has a similar page as WP:LTA. Would appreciate your help and input. Aintabli (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. I think this link should give the correct settings for the move, if you could try it: [2] (though I can't be sure, since visiting the link just tells me I don't have filemover permission). This sort of move definitely works in the article space, as I have removed this same invisible character (ZWJ) from an article's title in August. SilverLocust💬11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SilverLocust I only worry about redirects if the file has many/few (article live) links, depends, not so much as DB reports, user archives..... the red link can always be followed and get the OG filename. - FlightTime (open channel)12:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
On March 10th of this year I noticed an edit to the Wiki page for the band, "Damn Yankees" stating that they were founded in Syracuse, NY. This peaked my interest being from Syracuse myself. However I am unable to find any reference or interview that indicates that the band was formed in Syracuse. What seems to stick out as a starting point is when Ted Nugent was in Tommy Shaw's apartment in NY City jamming in 1988. Later that year Jack Blades stayed at Shaw's apartment where the two jammed and wrote some music.
Is there something someone can show me that establishes Syracuse as the location where they were founded?
Hello, I didn't add that information, I just replaced what was there after someone removed it. I'm from Syracuse myself. I was born there. My dad was in the Air Force, so I assume I was born on some military base there, I have no idea the base's name or where it was. I trust this user Binksternet when it comes to music, he my know or be able to source the claim. It's nice to hear from someone from Syracuse. Good luck. - FlightTime (open channel)15:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1996 book MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide says Damn Yankees was formed in NYC. The 2001 edition of Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll: Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll agrees, saying the band was formed in April 1989 in NYC. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to thank you for creating an account for me. I have one question now: At the time of submitting my details for an account request, I provided a rather casual username which I'd like to be changed. I tried changing it but couldn't be successful. Could you please provide some guidance on this? Once again thanks for creating an account for me. I will make the best use of it!
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.
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&wpOldTitle=File%3AUSS+Balao+standing+in+for+Operation+Petticoat%E2%80%8D%27s+fictional+USS+Sea+Tiger.png&wpNewTitle=File%3AUSS+Balao+standing+in+for+Operation+Petticoat%27s+fictional+USS+Sea+Tiger.png&wpReason=Requested+move&wpMovetalk=1){kind=link}