Jump to content

User talk:Brent Brant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hi Brent Brant! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made another edit in which I removed the ambiguous word “later” and the superfluous word “fatal,” but I refrained from citing the book about Rose Cheramie that you say is unreliable. Please do not revert this edit. Study it carefully before you do anything.

I did not add any details about Cheramie’s intravenous drug use or her criminal record.Brent Brant (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lou Reed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Questioning. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Smile emoji Hi Brent Brant! Thank you for your edits to Richard Kollmar. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Fats Waller into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cass Elliot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Anderson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live[edit]

Hello, thank you for your edits to the page. I noticed that you've added a book source to the article; as the book is already present in the article, I have converted the references to {{Sfn}} templates. If it's not a problem, can you add the pages that verify the information? You can do it like so: {{sfn|Hill|Weingrad|1986|p=34}} for example, and then remove the {{Page needed}} tag. Spinixster (chat!) 09:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will consult a library copy of the book as soon as I can.^^^^ Brent Brant (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Martin[edit]

Please do not remove the text on speculation of Martin's sexuality without a good reason. You mentioned the talk page in your edit summary, but when I looked at the talk page @DragonflySixtyseven has given a solid argument as to keeping the information. -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ae245. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to James Coco—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Ae245 (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James Coco. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blame must fall on an editor who cites a non-RS in a new edit. Brent Brant (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at James Coco, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blame must fall on an editor who cites a non-RS in a new edit. As I have said in edit summaries, I have a copy of that book that is not an RS. All it says is that eight years after Coco died, the author assumed he was gay. Coco himself commented on gay people, as did many other performers such as Dustin Hoffman, during that era, and their sympathetic opinions do not mean they were themselves gay. Finally, that Wikipedia editor stopped doing their part of the edit war. Coco’s article endures with legitimately sourced facts about his career. May he rest in peace. Brent Brant (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at James Coco. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Boze Hadleigh source James Coco does not say he is gay. Brent Brant (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through that interview specifically to address your claim that Coco never explicitly described himself as gay within the text of the Hadleigh interview.
There are multiple statements in Hadleigh which can, if one is very intent on so doing, be interpreted as "Coco was deeply knowledgeable about gay performers of both sexes, and had strong opinions on homophobia and 'the gay community' and the plight of gay characters and the lives of gay men who are physically unattractive, but was not himself gay".
However, p. 122:
Hadleigh: Do you think some young gay people gain weight to shield them from their own sexuality?
Coco: Absolutely. Do you mean me when I was young?

and p. 128:
Hadleigh: [Your role in Only When I Laugh] wasn't that much of a metamorphosis.
Coco: Augh! (guffaws) How nasty!
Hadleigh: No, no. A gay actor playing a gay character?
Coco: A gay overweight actor playing someone gay and overweight.

If you can find a parsing for either quote which is not "Coco acknowledged that he was gay", I would be interested to know it. DS (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the three words “Coco was gay,” which are all the Wikipedia article has for his personal life, don’t do justice to his alleged comment on the connection between obesity and being LGBTQIA+. Also, Boze Hadleigh’s accuracy and honesty have been called into question. You find the heading “Recommended Books,” then a list of seven books about LGBTQIA+ popular music performers, then “In Addition,” and under “In Addition” you learn about the questionable nature of Hadleigh’s material. Coco was conveniently dead for more than eight years when his alleged conversation with Hadleigh was published. That was convenient for Hadleigh. Brent Brant (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to challenge our use of Hadleigh as a source, by all means, do - but please do so in the right place, which is the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
If you feel that a three-word declarative sentence is an oversimplification of a complex man's complex life, feel free to expand it. DS (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Brent, there's a considerable difference between speculating about a topic, and noting that many other people have speculated about it, including in reliable sources. Sometimes there can be so much academic debate that we have entire articles about it. You are free to delete all such content from the first article, and nominate the other four articles for deletion, but I don't think you'll have much success.

Like it or not – and it would seem you don't – the speculation is out there, on the record, and it would be intellectually dishonest to omit it. DS (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brent_Brant&oldid=1230679150"