User talk:RunnyAmiga/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Widr (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Widr: Wow, thank you! And it only took like five tries to get me to stop screwing up with it. Time to add another little globe thing to the top there. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Murkowski

I am not engaged in an "edit war." It's a matter of changing a date and rephrasing. Your edit incorrectly implied that Murkowski became the senior senator from Alaska as soon as Stevens lost his election. I simply clarified that it was when he left office (2009 as opposed to 2008). I am not attempting to sockpuppet. I edited one from my home and one from my workplace. 67.197.213.222 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@67.197.213.222: My edit neither claimed nor implied any such thing. It implied that Stevens lost his election in 2008, and it implied that because Stevens lost his election in 2008. Your edit implied that Murkowski took office in 2008, which she didn't. So do me a favor. Please just stand by for a bit while I try to re-write it to make it clear that Stevens lost his election in 2008 but Murkowski didn't take office until 2009.

Also: "I edited one from my home and one from my workplace." You're right; that's not really sockpuppeting. It's still sketchy, and it would be better if you just got an account so all your edits are located in one place. Why don't you get an account? RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"She became the state's senior senator when Ted Stevens lost his election to Mark Begich in 2008."

That is a quote from your edit. The way it’s phrased, it at least implies that she became the senior senator "as soon as" Stevens lost. My edit specified that it was when Stevens left office, which was not in 2008 but in 2009.

"This refusal to discuss before reverting constitutes vandalism"

I explained the change in the edit summary. It is not vandalism, and repeatedly correcting an error is not edit warring.

"Please just stand by for a bit while I try to re-write it to make it clear that Stevens lost his election in 2008 but Murkowski didn't take office [as the senior senator] until 2009."

Or you could just use my edit, which said exactly that.

"You're right; that's not really sockpuppeting. It's still sketchy"

According to whom?

"and it would be better if you just got an account so all your edits are located in one place. Why don't you get an account?"

I had a username for years. I stopped editing other-than-anonymously when a flame war with a repeatedly-banned user ended up with me being cyberstalked both here and on other sites.

You do realize that you’ve accused me of edit warring, vandalism, and borderline sockpuppetry over a date?67.197.213.222 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@67.197.213.222: You know what? You're right. None of this is truly important. I doubt either of us came to Wikipedia to get into a fisking back-and-forth. If there was confusion, and there was, then we were both wrong and the sentence wasn't written properly. If it had been, neither of us would've read it like we've been reading it. So how about now? I sincerely believe my edit properly addresses the issue. It makes clear that Stevens lost in 2008 but remained in office as the senior senator until Begich took the job in 2009, at which point Murkowski became the senior senator. Doesn't it? RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's fine now. 67.197.213.222 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@67.197.213.222: And regardless of what was going on with the content, there really is no question that I confronted harder than I should have. I'm glad we were able to settle this and I apologize. RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. We're fine. 67.197.213.222 (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Impressment

Hello, my apologies as I haven't edited a wikipedia page before and I can't for the life of me figure out how to respond to your question about WP:OR on the revisions log section on the impressment page. To answer your question, here are links to the song, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OUY5GOOGcY and the lyrics, http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/murder+city+devils/press+gang_20296041.html

I honestly wasn't sure how to add these links as citations or direct links or not. The song is directly and clearly a story about press gangs, and thought it appropriate to add to the cultural section. What else should I do for this to be correctly added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:0:EE00:98F0:BDF9:B396:9AEB (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@2601:42:0:EE00:98F0:BDF9:B396:9AEB: The thing is, we need a source backing up this explanation of the song's lyrics. Like, if an article about the Murder City Devils in a magazine like Rolling Stone had a bit where the author mentioned that this song is about a man hanged by impressed soldiers, that would be enough. But if the explanation came because you listened to the song, read the lyrics, and understood them to mean this, it's original research. We don't allow that sort of thing because this site considers itself a conduit of information from experts to readers, not a creator of information itself.

Although to be honest, I'm looking at the lyrics and I'm thinking it might be okay anyway. We have an advice section of the site's writing manual, WP:OBVIOUS, that says we're allowed to make unsourced claims if they're clearly accurate. Like, you don't need a source to say the sky is blue. In this case, the lyrics have references to the song's subject serving on a ship, etc., and the line "Just a victim of the press gang" makes it really obvious that it doesn't have a secret meaning, that it's lyrically telling a story about impressed soldiers hanging a man. I'm going to revert myself back to you per the OBVIOUS guideline (and maybe use Genius as a reference instead of LyricsFreak because I think Genius is looked upon a little better as a reliable source) but it's entirely possible that someone will come along and remove it again if they think I'm taking OBVIOUS too far. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello RA. A couple things in regard to this edit. First and foremost, you do not need to use ping the editor when posting on their talk page. They get a message whenever a new post has been made on their talk page. Second, if you have saved a post on a talk page and then go back and add a ping to it the ping does not work - you have to make an entirely new post with a ping in it. It is a flaw in the ping system that they have been unable to fix. I hope this info will help you as you proceed in your editing. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Heh, thank you. I'm a bigger doofus than I thought. I've jokingly asked about this in a few edit summaries before, but I really would like to know: is there an automated way of pinging, or maybe reminding me to ping whenever I post in a place where a ping might be called for? RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not as far as I know RA. There is info at WP:NOTIFICATIONS but, with the massive changes to the system in the last two months, the info there is hopelessly out of date so I don't know if it will be of any help. The one place that I can think of to ask is the WP:HELPDESK. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! Re: World Financial Group

Hi there RunnyAmiga and thank you for taking the time to explain why my requested revision to the World Financial Group page was reverted. Since you've chosen to revert my revision, may you please help me with specific feedback regarding the proper way to go about the revision I suggested?

I would like to remove the reference to World Financial Group as a "multi-level marketing company." As you know (and as the Wikipedia page for Multi-level marketing states), this is a controversial label. Accordingly, referring to a company with this label has a negative and tangible impact. I have experienced a negative impact to my business (not to mention my family's livelihood) because it is in part tied to WFG's brand and reputation. It of course does not wholly affect my ability to conduct business but I'm sure you can understand the causation. Affiliation to a company being given a negative label on Wikipedia can at least in a small way negatively impact people's perception of one's business. Perceptions are negatively impacted by anything that is written online. While I obviously cannot do anything about other people's opinions online (other than manage perceptions at a local level), my hope is that at least Wikipedia would only depict facts and not opinions unless specifically regarded as such in the article. I believe Wikipedia is supposed to be an un-biased "encyclopedia" and should be kept free of any insertion of bias or opinions. I know other people trust Wikipedia as such a source.

WFG does not identify itself as a multi-level marketing or direct selling company. It has never been legally defined by the FTC or any other government agency as such. While there may be some similarities to a multi-level marketing company in the way WFG allows its associates to conduct business, there are also many differences from multi-level marketing inherent to the organization. This is why it does not refer to itself as a multi-level marketing company. In other words, applying such a label to WFG would be aligned with 3rd party opinion rather than fact.

On the contrary, WFG is a "financial services company" and is referred to as such on corporate web sites, in brochures, pamphlets, etc. I do not see the rationale for labeling WFG in a Wikipedia article as a multi-level marketing company. Any justification to do so would require opinion-based editorial license and would not be congruent with a fact-based encyclopedic standard.

I am happy and more than willing to disclose that I am a fully-licensed financial professional myself and that I receive compensation for my financial business from World Financial Group. While this of course motivates me to make this revision to the WFG article on Wikipedia, it in no way influences the actual facts at hand which I would be happy to review in a full discourse, should that be deemed necessary to legitimize my requested revision.

Thanks again!

UclaFinancial (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)UclaFinancial

@UclaFinancial: "I am a fully-licensed financial professional myself and...I receive compensation for my financial business from World Financial Group." Your section heading here is catching me off-guard. You seem to think this is about "Actual vs Apparent COI," but you're operating under the very definition of a conflict of interest. I'll tell you point-blank: you cannot edit that article unless it's blatant vandalism, which calling WFG a "multi-level marketer" is not, even if the term is damaging or false. Blatant vandalism would include someone adding gibberish strings of characters, blocked or banned users editing undercover, or the addition of utterly impossible claims like WFG's employees are allowed to hunt each other for sport. If there's a snowball's chance in hell it's true, you can't remove it. You have to discuss your issue on the talk page.

As for the connotations, I 100% agree. The term "multi-level marketing" is damaging and negative. But "negative" isn't a good enough reason to remove something from here. Can we agree that a good example of an MLM is Amway? Because, you know, it definitely is. Does Amway produce literature referring to itself as that? It would be surprising if it did because even though it's obviously an MLM, it wants to avoid terms with negative connotations. Every person, company, government, or whatever entity is the same way, so how is it fair to consider Wikipedia biased because we're willing to state painful truths?

So let's specifically talk about WFG. Our article says that WFG "associates are compensated by selling financial services products and receiving commission overrides from people that agents sponsor into the company." That's sourced to an article where the relevant text reads: "As a pyramidlike, multilevel sales organization, World Financial produces the big compensation for its agents not from their sales of products so much as their recruitment of new agents, according to the company's marketing materials." The problem with this? It's an ironclad statement that verifies the claim that WFG is a multi-level marketing company and the source is the New York Times. That's absolutely, positively not just Wikipedia spouting an opinion. It's a statement of fact in the newspaper of record.

But even the New York Times gets stuff wrong. So I'll ask you a point-blank, yes-or-no question. Our sister site, Wiktionary, defines "multi-level marketing" as "A sales system under which the salesperson receives a commission on his or her own sales and a smaller commission on the sales from each person he or she convinces to become a salesperson." Is that an accurate description of WFG? Can agents make money off recruits' sales? The New York Times says so, and it's as reliable a source as we'll get on here. Is the Times wrong? You obviously believe it is. Do you have a reliable source backing up your belief? RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Shaunae Miller

Re [1], please also see [2] (noting in particular, the sneaky edit summary).

I can't undo it, because it's been semi-protected now. Meh. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@86.20.193.222: I was the one who requested protection on that article, and look what happened. Look what I did. Instead of a veteran editor reverting vandalism from an editor with an IP, it's an editor with an IP wanting to revert vandalism from a veteran editor. And you couldn't and it's all my fault. I'm the worst.

Anyway, good catch, and I left a suitably cranky note at his talk page. Because yeah, screw that edit summary. RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, might be a good example of when prot doesn't necessarily help things :-) Although I can quite understand it being necessary. Sites like 'reddit' went a bit mad, about this girl 'stealing' a medal from the USA's golden star.

It'll settle down in a few days from now, when everyone has forgotten all about it; I just hope it'd settle with a suitably-neutral version.

Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

...and, same again. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@86.20.193.222: I hated doing this but whatever. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about my John Kassir edit

I did that because this Wikipedian keeps deleting his birthdate. Literally EVERY source says October 24, 1957, so his birthdate is NOT an area of dispute. At this point, I figured we didn't even NEED a damn ref. I apologize

--- Dpm12 (10:13 PDT; 19 August 2016) Dpm12 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dpm12: I figured as much, but I was hoping you'd notice that I didn't remove the claim that Kassir's DOB is October 24, 1957. That you didn't notice what I'd done, even with the edit summary I provided, was no good. I accept your apology since I bet you'll make sure to check stuff like this in the future.

And as far as the back-and-forth goes, if I had to guess, I would say that it kept getting removed since so many of the sources, including the one you used that I replaced, are bad. Google this:

"John Kassir" "October 24"

I went through these search results and didn't find TCM or Rotten Tomatoes until page 5. Before that, I found dozens of pages that look like they were created by bots. Want to know what websites bots use for sources? IMDb and Wikipedia, both of which are obviously unacceptable to use as sources here. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: I see Ponyo is deleting the date again. I suggested that we discuss it rather than take action. I'm getting tired of admins like Ponyo who basically abuse their powers. I've been a Wikipedian for 10 years, and I'm plum tired of these people.

-- Dpm12 (11:48 PDT; 20 August 2016)

@Dpm12: I haven't gone back-and-forth on that since yesterday and to be honest, this entire thing slipped my mind. (No offense that I forgot about it. It's not your fault, her fault, or John Kassir's fault that I'm scatterbrained like that.) I'm going to take this to the discussion over there since I'm waiting for this page to get archived and until then, it's an unholy mess.

But let me say something else. I've spent a huge chunk of today in a massive dispute over text at Shaunae Miller. The disagreement, which has roped in at least three admins and almost got me blocked, is regarding whether her article will contain text saying she finished an Olympic race by diving across the finish line or falling across the finish line. It's so damn minor and even though it's really effing hypocritical of me to say this, I really hope you don't do what I did and take small stuff so personally. If we were talking about something major, I'd understand, but dude, we're talking about whether or not the article for the guy who did the Crypt Keeper's voice will have his date of birth on it. Is this an obnoxious discussion? Is it irritating that something so minor is being blocked by an admin? Sure. But even people who are interested in John Kassir probably aren't going to be upset if his date of birth isn't on here. If we're going to get pissed about stuff, let's make sure it's about stuff that matters. (And I went through his Facebook timeline trying to find something to verify his DOB. Based on how he is on there, he's a mellow-enough guy that he'd probably think it's funny that this is a source of dispute over here.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: Technically, it isn't a huge deal, but to me, it is. I'm not even a fan of the guy, but it irks me to see articles for living people, with no birthdate on it. I was in an edit war recently with Synthwave94 over the article for Losing My Religion. He kept deleting the genre "alternative rock", saying you needed a reliable source, and I explained WP:BLUE. After 8 hours of Googling, I finally found a source, even though I didn't need one, good enough for him, to use. I have been dealing with this shit for 10 years, and I just get tired of it. i understand why it isn't a big deal to you, but to me, it is.

-- Dpm12 (12:19 PDT; 20 August 2016)

@Dpm12: I definitely know it's a big deal. You've gone in on this like crazy, and you wouldn't have if you didn't care. You know what I bet felt good? After all that fighting, finding that source and winning the day. I'm not saying the same thing is about to happen since the source I found is incredibly weak, but I don't know. Stand by. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Alan Walker (producer)

Hello. It's discography part and these songs weren't released on any studio or compilation albums so should be listed. Eurohunter (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I haven't edited that article in weeks so my memory on this is going to take a bit of work. My guess is that you're talking about this edit. I explained that edit with

"These sorts of lists are enough to destroy articles if they get too long. Only charted stuff should be here"

I still think that. If they didn't chart and weren't on any sort of album, are they important enough to be listed? RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: And to answer my own question, it looks like a "no." At Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included, it says we shouldn't list unofficial releases, and I think these songs are unofficial releases since they're not singles, album tracks, or charted songs. I honestly can't find a guideline that specifically deals with non-album songs, though. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Online World of Wrestling

Hello, I see that you are removing links to Online World of Wrestling profiles, claiming that this is due to a consensus at WT:PW. My understanding from the discussion was to remove the links if they were being replaced with something more reliable. You are just removing the links without replacing anything. I am confused as to why you would cite a discussion that does not support your actions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: The timeline splits at my edit to Braun Strowman. I'm confident all my edits up to that point have to stay because the links were obviously added by someone who hoped to increase the site's visibility rather than help the encyclopedia. I extended WP:AGF to an extreme degree, but this person was given plenty of time to establish that this isn't a linkspam issue. They responded to two messages from me in a way that a truly uninvolved editor would not, then vanished.

But it seems like you're more concerned with the edits I did after Strowman, starting with The Spirit Squad. The consensus at that discussion, which I'm relying on for the edits in question, had a few things that I think make it okay that I am, as you correctly said, leaving external link sections empty.

"...don't seem to offer a unique resource..."
"...doesn't seem to be particularly well written, or authoritative..."

You've probably looked through some of the OWW profiles whose links I've removed. This site is really amateurish and I'm not seeing one bit of expertise that couldn't be gained from watching the shows, reading wrestling books, and gleaning information from other, better sites. User:Silverfish easily gained consensus for the following:

"I propose we delete links to the site when included in the external links section (at least where there are other, more reliable sources linked to), and if used as a reference then supported by a more reliable source (where possible)."

This is all where I'm coming from. I could be wrong. But to me, the words "at least" means that this isn't "a discussion that does not support [my] actions." It's not huge but it must have been added to provide wiggle room even when there aren't "other, more reliable sources." Because we need to call it like it is: OWW isn't a reliable source. Everything about it seems amateur, something to do during commercials. And if OWW was used as a reference within an article's text, I didn't remove it even when there were other references around it. (Or did I? Now I'm nervous. If I did, it was a mistake and I didn't mean to.) There's no way the site's writers are credentialed by WWE, TNA, etc., and shouldn't "credentialed" be the standard? RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: Per this search, you can see that I was in the middle of manually removing links from over a hundred pages. That process is on hold because I want to make sure there aren't any issues with what I'm doing. Let me know if you think I should go ahead or if my conclusion regarding OWW's value is incorrect. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, that this is not a battle worth fighting. You've said what we're all thinking about the source, and, when I really think about it, the best I've got is the facts that they've just always been there and it's kind of nice to be able to get a bit more information. My points obviously don't trump WP:RS, so I'm just going to move on and forget about it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: I think your interpretation of the proposal is correct. My intention was (and still is) to remove OWW links, but only in the process of adding links to cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com, www.profightdb.com, and to official WWE, NJPW, etc profiles, and turning raw links into templates. My assumption is that all notable wrestlers/tag teams, etc will have at least one such profile (cagematch in particular is very comprehensive). RunnyImage, I think it's fine to remove oww links if there are other reliable sources already there, but if you leave those with just an oww link, and I can work on those, adding the appropriate links. By the way, GaryColemanFan, I've been adding OWW links (or identifiers) on Wikidata. Go to the wikidata entry for Hulk Hogan, and look for the Online World of Wrestling ID, for example. Silverfish (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Silverfish: Not a problem. The long view here is that eventually, all the links will be gone, and given my pace at removing them lately, it's not like I'm in any hurry. The plan here would be for me to revert everything starting from my edit to the Spirit Squad. Any objections to retaining my removals of links up to Braun Strowman, given that they were added by an editor whose username matches the most common byline (as far as I noticed) at OWW? Unless my memory fails me, not a single one up to that point left an empty external links section. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with retaining the removals of the newly added links, as they seem to be spammy, and I think we shouldn't be adding any more OWW links. Silverfish (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan and Silverfish: All the links between Spirit Squad and Los Guerreros should be restored. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Shaunae Miller, continued

@Ronhjones: You've reviewed the edits and summaries there from User talk:SirBartleMerryworth. You read my report on his edits at WP:AIV. You're aware that even if the information being added is good, edit-warring without discussion as SirBartleMerryworth has been doing for days is vandalism. I'm taking for granted that the previous three sentences are all true. Given these facts, giving me a template I don't need struck you as an appropriate measure? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's an appropriate measure as you fundamentally misunderstand what is vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ronhjones and NeilN: NeilN, I'd like an answer to that question from Ron instead. Please hold off on replying because it's more pertinent to his message here than anything you could contribute. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN is correct. It's not wp:vandalism - as the page clearly says "For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism". It's just a content dispute. The wp:3rr rule therefore applies. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an exemption to 3RR for "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material."

Policy says you should "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source".

SirBartleMerryworth's edit summary says, "I saw the race and she clearly dove" - which is exactly the kind of Original Research that the policy covers.[3]

Please, can someone get rid of that libellous claim that she dived to beat Miller, ASAP. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not listen to this IP's advice about this being a BLP violation. It is not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not listen to this admininstrator's advice about me being wrong, even if it's in bold print. He's wrong, I'm right, and BLP policy is extremely important. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP policy is extremely important. So much so that trying to repeatedly twist it to game the system could be seen as disruptive editing and cause you to be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Threatening to abuse your admin powers over what you say is a content dispute? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Read what I wrote. Nothing to do with content. Everything to do with your false characterization of this being a BLP violation and exempt from 3RR. You can argue for your wording change, just do it without blatantly misusing policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a perfect example of "contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". She was not "diving across the line to beat Allyson Felix". She fell over; she 'took a dive'. It was not a deliberate act. The references do not claim that it was.

The policies mentioned are absolutely applicable. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources used in the article disagree with you, which makes it a content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Which source, where? The telegraph article quotes 'She gave everything she had and her legs gave out at the line. It was not intentional.'

Anyone reading it in the current Wikipedia article will be lead to believe it was. That is not a neutral representation of what the references state. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the whole paragraph: "In the dying seconds of the race, Miller's legs seemed to give up, and she threw herself forwards in an instinctive dive for the line, hurling herself without any apparent concern for her own well being, hand clutching for the finish and her first Olympic title." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, so say all that stuff. Just don't claim that she was "diving across the line to beat Allyson Felix".86.20.193.222 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN and 86.20.193.222: Hey, cool, I loved getting 14 fucking email notifications in the middle of the night about this. My phone's LED light thing doesn't seem to have any way of differentiating between Wikipedia emails and, you know, stuff that actually matters, so nothing like a ton of missed messages about nothing important at all to make me think that someone frantically, repeatedly tried to contact me at 12:30 this morning. So thank you both for using this appropriate location for a content dispute about a word in an article because after all, an anonymous editor who clearly has spent a lot of time here and an effing admin surely can't find a better place for this. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) RunnyAmiga, not every editor is in the same part of the world as you, so you can't really expect them to edit only when it's a convenient time of day where you are. If you find email notifications a nuisance, why don't you disable email notifications of talk page messages? (Personally, I have never understood why anyone would want to get an email every time someone posts to their Wikipedia talk page anyway, as one finds out as soon as one logs into Wikipedia anyway, but obviously it's a matter of personal preference.) However, I do agree that your talk page was not the best place for this discussion to take place. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Well, this was a few days ago and while I've not personally heard a peep from either person about this, it's telling that my reaction here stopped the discussion cold, wouldn't you say? (Although maybe it would have stopped anyway; I'm not aware of whether or not this stuff with Shaunae Miller is still going on, since the discussion was a multiple-front dumpster fire and I'll be damned if I'm going to keep trying to get the error removed from her article.) I don't really think it's fair that I should have to change my notifications since I've gotten over 150 emails notifying me of actions by dozens of editors and it's never been a problem other than this. My preference is to have them. That's just me. I'm one way. You're the other. That's okay.

It was the locale that struck me as unacceptable, far more so than the timing. Wikipedia isn't very advanced when it comes to increasing users' awareness of other users' time zones so they didn't know what time it was where I am, I didn't expect them to, and I never said anything otherwise. But the fact that I didn't pipe up at all, even just to say "What ho, chaps! Get a clue and go away!" or something should have indicated to someone, somewhere in the midst of fourteen messages, that having this conversation here wasn't appropriate. We've all had disputes like that, where we get heads so full of steam that we don't realize we're arguing about Taylor Swift-versus-Katy Perry on the talk page for the Bering Sea or whatever, but still. The anonymous editor didn't bug me as much, but User:NeilN is an administrator with 11 years' experience on here. I expect a little more competence and self-awareness than that, and you know what's a great way to help others in this regard? Barge into the conversation and use lots of swear words while asking everyone to go away. Maybe you're right that my approach was overly bullheaded, awfully uninformed, etc., but you can't deny that it worked like a charm. I posted that three days ago and neither user has been back since. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your "approach" would have worked just as well if you had posted, "Okay, please take this elsewhere". And given your troubles understanding what vandalism is, I wanted to make sure you didn't dig yourself deeper following the IP's lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Odd use of scare quotes aside, you're not necessarily wrong. But neither of us knows how much politeness would have worked on the other guy. I know that my approach worked perfectly so no regrets. And thanks for coming back to pointlessly needle me about old drama that I just said in the message you replied to that I'm not involved in any more; I went back and forth a bit about whether or not to alert you to this discussion and dangit, it looks like I chose...poorly. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Good-faith promotional editors

I've just seen your user page, and read "If a good-faith editor is inserting promotional links, adding the word "spam" to the discussion isn't very nice." I totally agree, and years ago I tried to get the word "spam" removed from some of the pages where it appears, but I got nowhere, because of editors who think anyone who does any promotional editing deserves no sympathy at all. I see that you created an alternative link without the word "SPAM" in it, but I'm afraid that will make only a small difference as long it links to a section called "External link spamming" on a page called Wikipedia:Spam, rather than something like Wikipedia:Promotional editing. Still, at least your link avoids the word "SPAM" being visible in the place the link is placed, which is a small improvement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: This user's edits were what set me off. That editor and one of the writers for Online World of Wrestling have the same screen name and are almost certainly the same person. I knew I was going to go on a long trudge reverting all of these, especially since I was advised by User:Widr not to use rollback since the edits weren't vandalism, so the idea of explaining almost 90 reverts of good-faith edits by using the word "spam" made me so uncomfortable that without another option, I probably wouldn't have done it. I was aware that I wasn't doing much to fight what you and I agree is a big problem but hey, at least I'm not using that word to describe edits that don't deserve to be attacked.

And you're right. My actions didn't fix the real problem. I want to do something, though, because this bothers me every time I work on a good-faith promotional edit. So two questions: 1, can you provide a link or a few links to the old conversations that went nowhere? I'd still like to see what others said and I'm far too lazy to, you know, find this stuff myself. And 2, what about trying again? It's been years. Consensus can change. Although if it was as unhelpful as you say, I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't want to bother. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't remember where the old discussion took place, nor even which particular pages I was suggesting removing the word "spam" from. I do remember that very few people took part in the discussion, suggesting that it was probably somewhere obscure, such as the talk page of one not very prominent page or something of the sort. Certainly trying again is a possibility, but I wouldn't hold too much hope, as the word is so deeply engrained in Wikipedia culture, in such things as the title of the page Wikipedia:Spam, well-established expressions such a linkspam, refspam, numerous templates such as {{uw-spam2}}, {{spamusername}}, the instructions at the top of the page Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, frequent use in discussions on deletions, and so on and so on. The discussions I mentioned took place in the early part of my editing history, when I simply didn't have enough experience to realise how solidly the concept of "spam" was built into the whole fabric of Wikipedia. However, despite my doubts that it will get very far, by all means try to get the use of the word reduced, if you are willing to, and if you do start any discussions on it anywhere, let me know so that I can contribute. I don't think we will abolish the use of the word, nor even drastically reduce it, but we may get it slightly reduced. Even if no consensus to change anything is reached, the mere fact of drawing some editors' attention to the issue may possibly encourage some of them to look for alternative words to use. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: This, this, and this don't appear to have anything that seems like it's what I'm looking for although I could have missed something. I'd try to start a conversation but where? RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

NO -- you're welcome

Hey. The edit has to be removed as it currently is constituted. It doesn't provide any information or details. The only wikilink it has is United States. If it can be redirected to a particular auction, which is generally considered the largest, well that's different, but as it stands it's ... well, I don't want to use bad words about a possible good faith edit but.... Quis separabit? 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: So I should restore it with a link to The Great Slave Auction? That's a specific event that concluded on March 3, 1859 and I don't know. It seems major. RunnyAmiga (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's what they meant (The Great Slave Auction). If you can figure out the date it started and roughly how long it lasted, then sure. Quis separabit? 02:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: It started on March 2 and ended on March 3, at least according to this big sign. I reverted myself and added the auction's link. Should it say more, like the start date? RunnyAmiga (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. The events and entries are by date: so the The Great Slave Auction has to go under March 2 as start date and it can be noted that it ended the next day. (Really just one day?) Quis separabit? 02:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checked. It looks good. Quis separabit? 02:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I figured we'd need to have this listed on the March 2 article so there it is. Thanks again, RunnyAmiga (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

rollback removed

Pursuant to this discussion, and your noted lack of participation once the boomerang came around, I have removed the rollback user right from your account. Once you have a proven understanding of WP:VANDAL, you're free to ask an administrator to restore it. Katie^talk 00:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I haven't looked at that thread since I posted there last. You might say I had a responsibility to keep checking it since I started it, but nah. I feel like I raised a plethora of issues and most were ignored. I guarantee the issues I raised about SirBartleMerryworth's behavior still haven't gotten any sort of substantial reaction. You'd be surprised to know how incurious I am to read messages from people disregarding what I was saying and instead threatening me if I don't correct mistakes I've made that never, ever got explained to me. It was a nasty, unproductive discussion and only devolved from there.

To be clear: I disengaged because I was point-blank ordered by an admin to drop the stick lest I get blocked. If a user as confrontational as I admittedly am can back off, cool down, and let the issue go, surely editors who consider themselves leveler heads can do the same. The order from an admin to stop was the only reason I moved on. I'd appreciate it if you would strike your false "boomerang" claim here and any other claim or implication you've made anywhere else about my motives that says otherwise. Other than that, you pinged me, I ignored it, and I apologize. It was because the conversation had reached what I considered a terminally unhelpful point. That's it.RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's late. I'll have my customary 19 paragraphs up tomorrow. RunnyAmiga (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi, GB fan, KrakatoaKatie, NeilN, Ronhjones, SirBartleMerryworth, Widr, and Winkelvi:

Anyone who should be on that ping list but isn't was left off accidentally. I tried to include anybody even remotely involved except for the various IP editors who seem to be getting blocked left and right at Miller's article. I have no issue with involving anyone else who might be concerned about this.

I have no intention of going back to that ANI thread. I raised an issue, it was quickly disregarded in favor of continuing a content dispute, and I felt dogpiled by several admins who constantly redirected away from the issue I raised, an issue that another user concurred seemed to be a recurring problem with User:Drmargi. Up until my last edit, which was almost a week ago, I had received several messages, none of which constituted substantial reactions to my initial concern. That the conversation didn’t peter out days ago truly surprises me, but not enough that I’ll go back to restart what would likely be more unhelpful contentiousness.

I also have no intention of working on Miller's article any time soon. If several longer-term editors here don't think the term "dived" constitutes a WP:BLP issue, I'll just take for granted that I'm wrong.

That said.

Had User:SirBartleMerryworth removed the word "falling" and, instead of replacing it with "diving," inserted a claim that Shaunae Miller “took a bus” across the finish line, that would have constituted vandalism because it would have been a deliberate, obvious error. Had he inserted a cuss word, "Hitler," or a string of gibberish, it would have been the same deal: vandalism. Had he been a blocked user with a secret identity, vandalism. Vandalism only applies to content and if an edit is anything that anybody could consider helpful/useful/accurate, it doesn’t meet the definition. Continuing what I perceived to be a string of problematic behavior can be an issue, but if it’s content, anything that could have been contributed by a well-meaning user isn’t vandalism.

My use of rollback didn’t start until SirBartleMerryworth had reverted me more than once. His reverts and their explanations were, to my mind, unhelpful and unbecoming of a veteran editor. The problem was, even if he wasn’t on the up-and-up, his veteran status shouldn’t have had me putting my dukes up. Even veteran editors can make mistakes.

It’s up for debate whether or not SirBartleMerryworth exhibited problematic behavior, but since he was inserting prose that didn’t constitute an obvious attempt to harm the project, it wasn’t vandalism. I’ve been made aware more than once that rollback is for obvious vandalism. If it’s a possibly good-faith edit accompanied by what I consider problematic behavior, I can’t use rollback.

So. The way I react to what I perceive to be unhelpful behavior will not involve rollback unless that unhelpful behavior is a clear attempt to do harm to the articles on this website. If given back the right, I will bear this in mind without exception and behave accordingly. While I believe my judgment has been correct in every instance of rollback use except for this, 99% isn’t good enough. I’ll hold myself to the standard that apparently was good enough for User:Widr to give me the right without me even asking for it (or, for that matter, knowing exactly what rollback was). Because in the end, that would be the biggest failing of mine here: the possibility that my inappropriate behavior could cause people to think that Widr, who is a relatively new admin, doesn’t exhibit the good judgment that 199 people expected from him. For his sake more than mine, I hope this makes it right. I apologize for claiming a non-vandal was a vandal, I apologize for edit-warring, and I apologize for misusing rollback. If the right is restored, it will be my personal mission to make up, via my contributions, rollback (and pending changes) use, and interactions with others, for the damage I did to anyone involved in this.

Please let me know here if anything else needs to be addressed. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, that comment was too long to read through comfortably, so what I'll do is recommend you try Twinkle. It has a "Rollback" function with three choices: Rollback good faith edit, standard Rollback, and Rollback vandalism. This will demonstrate whether or not you know the difference between a good faith edit and a problematic one. What do you think, KrakatoaKatie? Is this the best way forward? Zero^talk 11:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Thanks, I guess? Your comment seems like it was meant to help, so maybe in the future you might re-think starting such remarks with insults. RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was not attempting to insult you; rather, I was making light of the fact that your post was rather long. Please don't take my comments the wrong way, as that was not my intention. I was simply trying to help as well as adding a humorous tone to the conversation. Zero^talk 07:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: You were "making light" by pointing at something that anybody (except for all the people I pinged who have ignored it) could tell I worked fucking hard on and claiming it was too long to read. Louis C.K. you ain't. That it's about 700 words and the average person reads at a rate of 180-200 words per minute makes me wonder: if you're too busy to spare just under four minutes, can you also be too busy to say anything else here? RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you still willing to take my advice? I am still willing to give you advice, despite your incivility with me. Zero^talk 12:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, RunnyAmiga. Sorry to have seen the troubles you found yourself in recently. For what it's worth, I also recommend trying Twinkle rollback. It's much more flexible than regular rollback and quicker than manual undoing. I wish you happier editing times. Widr (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: For what it's worth: I'm genuinely surprised to learn that you're autistic. Teasing like that is a great way to drive off autistic editors since many (most?) are not able to understand exaggerated, non-literal humor. And even if we don't consider autistic editors, it's still true that words on a computer screen don't contain the non-verbal cues that you would use if you were doing insult comedy in person. Tone, cadence, facial expressions, body movements, and so on are the sorts of things that tell the audience without blatantly explaining it to them that you're joking and you're not seriously trying to hurt their feelings.I would avoid jokingly insulting people in the future unless they know you're not serious. You weren't serious but I didn't have any way of knowing that since I don't think I've ever interacted with you before this.

@Patient Zero, Widr, and KrakatoaKatie: I actually looked into Twinkle right after I was approved to review pending changes but I chose not to bother since it seems complicated and I have an issue with complicated things. I took the time to learn how rollback worked (with the predictable bunch of dopey mistakes along the way) because I was given the permission without asking for it and I felt both honored and obligated. Is Twinkle the appropriate way to show that I've understood where I went wrong and I can avoid mistakes in the future? If I master it (and deploy it accordingly), will that be enough to get me re-added to the rollback rolls? I don't know, and neither do you, Widr, and neither do you, Patient Zero. Until Katie chimes in, the only reason I would ever learn Twinkle would be as part of a good-faith, selfless effort to make up for my mistakes while improving the website, and is that really enough to motivate me to do anything? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 04:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just activate Twinkle in your preferences and give it a try. Twinkle's rollback allows you to choose between the three options that Patient Zero mentioned above, with an edit summary. WP:PERM is the best place to ask for rollback whenever you feel ready for it again. Widr (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1kQuan (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1kQuan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 02:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! RunnyAmiga, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! David.moreno72 02:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@David.moreno72: Thank you. And while I'm aware that this is an automated (or mostly automated) message, I still feel like I should ask for a review of my work there to determine whether or not it was appropriate to message me regarding this. I have no idea how this draft ended up on my watchlist, but it did, and when it popped up earlier today, I fixed a template link malformation that was obviously a sort of at-the-finish-line accident. I have no vested interest in any of this.

That said, I'm a bit alarmed. Are you seriously saying that an actual person with knowledge of how to convert a draft into an article reviewed this and the only problem was that it lacks inline citations? That if the author adds cites throughout the prose, it'll get accepted? Because of course that's not true, and maybe getting across that the draft contains way more than just this one issue would be a bit more appropriate. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@David.moreno72: For that matter, why haven't you posted anything to the talk pages of either of the draft's other two editors, including the guy who, you know, wrote the entire thing? Whatever process you use to send out these automated messages needs work because "only message the most recent editor" isn't enough. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The message is generated by a script. Disregard. Sorry for any inconvenience. Thank-you. David.moreno72 03:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@David.moreno72: I pretty much figured that. But am I wrong? It seems like the script needs work if it only messages a draft's most recent editor as opposed to its most frequent editor. Or if that's not possible, maybe just message every editor? Or give up until Wikipedia starts paying us? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 04:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Contribs stalker

*cough*CloseTheSpanTag*cough* —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: *cough*I have no idea what I'm doing. I don't understand anything. ARE THEY FIXED? HELP*cough* RunnyAmiga ※ talk 01:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

They are.

(Edit: BTW, that's exactly how I learned—someone had done it to their talk page, and I thought, ooh, that's cool!) —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway

"Unless you enjoy talking to yourself" Uh, I've been talking to myself this entire thread. Learn how to ping people and you won't have to do stuff like this. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Rather than tag-team an article, why don't you try discussing the matter? Cassianto ^Talk 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Interesting that you're asking me to discuss when I explained my edit to that article and you didn't explain why you reverted me. My concern is that you seem to think a section that consists solely of a link to a performer's filmography isn't acceptable. Is that your stance? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to concern yourself with the thread on Holloway's talk page, you'll see exactly what I (and others) have to say. Cassianto ^Talk 21:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto:

"why don't you try discussing the matter?"

*tries discussing the matter*

"If you'd like to concern yourself with the thread on Holloway's talk page, you'll see exactly what I (and others) have to say."

*still doesn't understand why someone who doesn't think this is an appropriate place to discuss content brought a content discussion here* RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm finished with this thread. Unless you enjoy talking to yourself, that is. Who says a talk page has to involve two people? Cassianto ^Talk 21:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Conor McGregor

Hi! That was funny! I was just about to unaccept the revision on Connor McGregor when you did it for me! #GMTA (Internal joke in Shell Engineering for "Great Minds Think Alike haha) Have a nice day! ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 16:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Target360YT: Isn't that the worst? You're all primed to wipe out some vandalism, you're feeling good about yourself for the great thing you're about to do for the world, and some other bozo comes along and steals your thunder like that. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: Ahahahaha... true.. true... At least greatness could last for a few seconds!

^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 16:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Non-user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.101.172 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you for adding my edit at 08/09/2016 at approximately 5:45p.m. Non user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.101.172 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! You did an excellent job sourcing the statement you added. I apologize if I seemed a little quick on reversing you; it's just that Murray's article tends to get vandalized a lot so people are a lot less patient with edits to it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode VIII

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I just warn him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Go to WP:ANI and discuss there. People are not happy, and it's not just about your bad AIV report. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Brees

Just wondering, was this reversion influenced in any way by this discussion on WP:NFL? Asking because sometimes I feel like my suggestions go unnoticed, or aren't taken seriously. If you were influenced by it, great; my comments are getting through to at least someone. If you weren't, that's also great because it means there's like-minded people trying to clean up the same mess. Lizard (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Without even clicking it, I'll tell you that the answer is no. I'm pretty sure that I have never discussed anything to do with the NFL on here with anybody.

(And now, I'll click it.)

Okay. Still no. An edit I considered bad showed up at the Pending Changes list and I sent it to the void. (Note a similarly unhelpful edit to Alex Smith that I voided a few minutes later.)

Although your issue is pretty much exactly what I worry about. There are players, both in college and the NFL, whose articles absolutely drown in these giant sections of play-by-play or game-by-game prose that I guarantee not a damn person ever actually reads from beginning to end. Naturally, the guys who get the most are starting quarterbacks (or co-starting quarterbacks? are they still doing that at Notre Dame?), since they rack up stats even if they're bad, so it's not a surprise that I'm reverting at Brees's and Smith's articles while you all are taking hatchets to articles like Ben Roethlisberger.

So while I wasn't influenced by what you said, I am now. I assure you that thanks to the discussion you linked to (that I probably would never have noticed), I'll be a little less hesitant when it comes to removing text like that. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool beans. That IP was going around adding stuff like that to a lot of articles. People think it's the norm to have a section for every single year for every player, so you end up with trivial garbage just to fill in a section and that adds up as the season goes on. P.S., I didn't get that ping. In order for ping to work properly, the edit must include a new signature. See the "usage" section on template:ping. Lizard (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: While it could probably be up for debate, I'm honestly wondering if these edits are against policy, specifically the part of WP:NOTNEWS that says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "Routine news reporting" could stand to specifically include or exclude stuff like this but whatever. I'm still gonna zap it.

As for the ping, I was hoping it would still work since I forgot to use it at first and the ping reminder I have didn't show up. I don't know why it's so tricky getting pings to work and eventually, I'm just going to write myself a guide on all the stuff I seem to repeatedly do wrong trying to use them. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say NOTNEWS is exactly why we should be upping our standards for article content. The test I use is that I ask myself, "Is it likely that this bit of information may ever be brought up in the future by a reliable, independent source?" A midseason game by Drew Brees in which he threw for ~260 yards would likely not pass this test, unless he reached some sort of milestone. But that brings up another issue: our obsession with stats. There's more to a player's career than stats. I recently expanded Y.A. Tittle and took care to only include stats where they were significant. And lo, the article is 60,000 bytes strong (totally tooting my own horn). So, it's possible to write extensive articles while avoiding week-by-week synopses. We just have to stop being lazy, and start cracking down. Lizard (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Incredible dr. Pol

You call my action "Bizar"? I'm on Wikipedia (not this one) for almost 10 years. You let one mistake of dr. Pol (if it really was one) fill half the article? That's no POV or PROMO. You have to think normal. I don't edit here anymore even if I see vandalism. I won't revert it. Have a good day/night. I won't really write what I think, you would get a trauma.. ¿ - Richardkiwi (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: No, I never called your action or anything else you did "Bizar" [sic]. And while you have only 30 edits, the time you've spent here means you should know why we don't use (or remove) text from articles just to make people look good. Although I insist: please write what you really think, even if it would get me a trauma. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so crazy to write you wat I really think. You will use it against me. What you say is just the same. Reverting me is just a way to make people look bad, to mention one thing that went wrong in a 40 year career in such a short article. Shame on you. p.s. Maybe 30 edits here, but 60.000+ elsewhere. THE END '73 - Richardkiwi (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: Since you had a look at WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV, you know that "to mention one thing that went wrong in a 40 year career in such a short article" isn't an acceptable reason to remove anything, so why keep saying that? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Internet edit

Moved to Talk:Hello Internet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Hitman's Bodyguard poster

Dear RunnyAmiga The changes we've made are to remove a poster which is not approved for publication. Please stop restoring it. Thank you

@Nuimagesocialmedia: Hi. I have several issues with your edit.

"The changes we've made..." Is more than one person using this account?
I doubt you'll deny that you have a conflict of interest. Your edits to the article are highly inappropriate per WP:COI, a page I've now directed you to at least twice with no reaction from you. Had you bothered, you'd have learned that you should have requested the poster's removal at the article's talk page.
It is a bright-line violation of Wikipedia policy to even approach a legal threat. See WP:NLT because you need to understand why even saying things like "This poster is not authorized for public release" is a really bad way to try to get things done here.
The image, which you haven't deleted, was uploaded by User:Facu-el Millo, an editor for almost three years. This person has explained the poster's inclusion by claiming that, since it " provide[s] critical commentary on the film," its use here is legal as fair use.

All this said, I still don't know exactly what to tell you. My reverts were strictly done as good-faith rejections of a conflicted user's attempt to remove worthwhile material from a high-visibility article on here. Now, I'm not a Wikipedia expert on images, so I can't say whether or not you're right or wrong. I'm going to try to find a Wikipedia administrator who knows about this stuff. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nuimagesocialmedia: I found an administrator with a good understanding of image and copyright stuff; see here. And note that, since I have no idea what the appropriate next step is, I've left the poster off the article. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RunnyAmiga. We are the production company of the film and the copyright holder. The poster you are referencing was posted on the internet without authorization. It was not approved for public release. We've removed it from all website that had posted it, including Wikipedia. Apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuimagesocialmedia (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks

Leonard.brandon (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Leonard.brandon: Thank you for the kitten! And thank you also for your edits at Bill Thomas Cheetah; you're off to a great start here. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Slovakia

im from slovakia so dont pretend as u know it better... Bonnermann123 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bonnermann123: Hi. Have you edited here under a different username? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Panimalar Engineering College

I edited panimalar page. It's not my opinion. These points are stated by newspapers and media. Proffered exists for those points. RahulRavichandran57 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@RahulRavichandran57: No, they're your opinions. Even if they were sourced, it's still entirely inappropriate for the first paragraph of an article. Go to that article's talk page if you want your edit to stay because edit warring will just get you blocked. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Torben Sondergaard page

Clearly, the ministry OplevJesus is behind the website thelastreformation.com. Why is this not obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.127.158 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Have I said anything to indicate I don't believe that OplevJesus runs that site? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are you to deny this edit?

Who are you to deny this edit? Kohrbra (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kohrbra: Are you the person that edit was about? Because I left a message regarding edits like yours at your talk page. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Here's an unhelpful, nasty discussion where nobody learned anything.

Hi. Please can you explain why you accepted the IP's edit to this page, as it's unsourced and fails WP:V? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: You know, it's funny. Before, nobody really ever said anything, positive or negative, about changes I'd accepted. But this is the second time in less than 24 hours that someone who's apparently never read the standards at WP:PENDING has lowkey accused me of failing to adhere to them. Had you bothered, you'd know that if an edit at the list doesn't "contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content," it passes. It says nothing about accepting or declining edits based on verifiability or sourcing, and for good reason. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 13:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks for that. I can sleep easy tonight knowing that you'll let any old unsourced rubbish into articles on here. "or other obviously inappropriate content" - read fail WP:V. Was the addition sourced? No. Can YOU verify it? No. Note that the film has a director, and saying that director's film has a nomination would be a BLP violation. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I didn't see where in your first message that you were concerned I allowed a BLP violation but let me assure you: since the BLP policy only bright-line bans "contentious material", you can rest easy. Are we afraid the guy's going to sue because someone falsely claimed that his work might get nominated for an Oscar?

It's strange that you claimed I'll "let any old unsourced rubbish into articles on here" given that I addressed it in my first reply. (It's almost like you didn't read what I said. Not reading stuff then getting chippy about what you didn't read is a weird habit to have.) As I said, it wasn't an oversight or an accident that WP:V isn't one of the requirements. An explanation for a pending-changes revert like this must say something like "unsourced and", and if I reverted with just "unsourced," that would be me doing it wrong. I won't insult you by linking to it again but I'll point out for the second time that if you actually read how pending changes protection is supposed to work, you'll be in a better position when you try to correct how others apply it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)}}

Gülen

Do you want to discusse any changes? --87.156.239.30 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, feel free if so... Au revoir RunnyAmiga. --87.156.224.161 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Fethullah Gülen. I'd rather discuss this on your talk page (since it's about your behavior) but I can't because you keep hopping IPs. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Gülen

Do you want to discusse any changes? --87.156.239.30 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, feel free if so... Au revoir RunnyAmiga. --87.156.224.161 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Fethullah Gülen. I'd rather discuss this on your talk page (since it's about your behavior) but I can't because you keep hopping IPs. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Katy Ashworth

Unsourced? There was a reference form the Daily Telegraph - one of the largest and most respected newspapers in the UK. Did you actually read it? Thought not..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.13.148 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's see.

You removed pieces of text regarding Ashworth's former partner and the birth of Ashworth's son and you didn't explain yourself. Where in the article is a source for these removals?
"...is a British actress. best known for presenting..." You added a grammatical error and a claim about what Ashworth is best known for. The source says nothing backing up that her presentation work is her "best known" work.
"Returning to the UK with her son three days later, her partner quickly started a UK court case..." False. The source does not say Alcott returned to the UK at that point, and given your use of the word "her," I'm wondering if you know that your sentence says Alcott returned to the UK. (And why do you keep referring to him as "her partner?")
"The High Court family judge immediately placed a reporting ban on the names in the case, whilst a decision was reached." Extraordinarily contentious and not in the source.
"...lifted the media reporting ban on the parents names but not report the name of the child." Same as above: there is nothing in the source about a ban, and claiming otherwise without a source is a policy violation.

And for what it's worth, the prose you added regarding the custody case contained several more grammatical errors.

What, exactly, was I supposed to do here? Leave a bunch of contentious, unsourced claims that could get Wikipedia sued? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COLOR

RunnyAmiga, at the above page you will find some tools that help one decide whether colors are compliant with guidelines established on the internet for text and colors; we follow these guidelines to enable those with vision difficulties to read our material. I don't know if the colors in your signature meet those guidelines, but I can't read the letters until I select/highlight them. Please consider changing that color. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: When I was learning how to make my own signature, I came across that suggestion, thought that I should keep that in mind, and promptly forgot about it. My signature's raw text is:

RunnyAmiga ※ talk

My username is mint green, the character in the middle has no markup so it's black, and the "talk" link is a darker green. Can you tell me which of these three elements, if any, are immediately readable on your part? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Or better yet, I just updated it. According to WP:COLOR, we should "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible." And according to the contrast checking tool at Snook.ca, my sig is now in compliance with WCAG 2.0's AAA level. Are all three individual elements now visible with no extra effort? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Yes, I can see em well enough--the font isn't the most legible, but I can read it yes. (It was the mint green that was giving me trouble, on both white and blue backgrounds.) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well dangit, I don't want it to be hard to read for anybody. So the Broadway font is out. How about Cooper? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks for the change of color from me, too. I'd thought about asking you to change the green for the same reason but had just asked someone else the same thing, and since I only know you both from seeing you comment at AN/I or somewhere like that, I felt I had already been very pushy. In my case it's probably advancing age :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: If your choice is "be pushy" or "have a crummy experience with this website," I'd want you to be pushy every time. I'd much rather people speak up if they see me doing something wrong than stay quiet so they don't hurt my feelings. In this case, I genuinely feel bad. I wonder how many people had problems with it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Plessy v. Ferguson

I just wanted to note that you're at three reverts on Plessy v. Ferguson. I've let Brennanfs know about their reverts as well, so hopefully they'll come to the talk page to explain their reasoning. clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: I did notice that and was planning on restraint but even still, thank you. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Lol, keep up the good patrolling. Errors sometimes happen. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: I was starting to get uncomfortable. Like, haven't I massively screwed anything up today? How'd that happen? So thanks for the opportunity to set things right. And shout-out to Jordan Williams. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a crazy mistake. I'm assuming you just looked at the NFL.com profile. And it wasn't so bad, you got a barnstar out of it lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Close: pro-football-reference, which in my experience has been pretty good about updating stuff. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't think practice squad stints are normally on there. That's what Williams was this year. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: So you're saying never trust pfref again. Got it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)