User talk:UpdateNerd

Sandwitches (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Sandwitches, but talk pages are reserved for discussing improvements to the article, not for LOLz. To be fair though, it's a hilarious image. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You put the old text back, which gives a lot of (often outdated) details, but basicly no information someone would need at first glance when entering this page. It should be a compact overview. You said I should discuss it first, but you yourself didn't write anything is the "talk" section to explain your view. Do you think the text as it is now, is better than my text? Sorry if you felt insulted if the text was yours, but this is not a readable information any user would need at first glance. It might be usefull when you dig more into the history. I hope not, but there also might be a political motivation, since the text as it is now gives the impression it is a total faillure, while when focussing on the most important facts, especially number of miles built, the picture gets different. CorCorCor (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CorCorCor: Main issue here, I think, is combining multiple changes into a single edit. Also, you should look for reliable secondary sources, not government websites which provide little context. I'm happy to keep helping improve the lead to reflect the current picture, which I appreciate that you're doing. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official US CBP site is the main source, it is reliable, and there is also no obligation to use other so called secondary sources. Some question the definition of "new wall", and say replacing and old fence with a completely new wall, is not "new wall", but that context can be provided elsewhere in this article. It is no reason to not use this source. CorCorCor (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CorCorCor: See WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ UpdateNerd Allright, I did not make my point as clear as I could. The basic demand is that a source must me trustworthy and easily understood. Not a link to raw research data, for example. The US CBP website is made to communicate the actual status of the wall to the general public, so an acceptable source. It could be called a secondary source also, because the primary source is spreadsheets etc. from the contractors. Of course it should be noticed that a large part is replacement for existing structure, which I did in the same sentence.

To deepen the discussion a bit: Secondary sources are best, but not always, and the distinction can be difficult to make, like here. In this particular case another factor comes into play: Many news sites (in practice the most used secondary source) try to spin the progress either way on this very politisized subject. Taking all this into account, the US CBP site is the best source to start with. CorCorCor (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CorCorCor: I have no problem with using the website as a ref (in addition to coverage by the news), although it doesn't provide more than a statistic. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

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:There are always more fish in the sea and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:There are always more fish in the sea, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UpdateNerd! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources I found that could be added for the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page. These have mentioned by some respected sources, and even a few historians.

“As he died his breathing grew quieter, his face more calm.^[1] According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} Historians, most notably author Lee Davis have emphasized Lincoln's peaceful appearance when and after he died: "It was the first time in four years, probably, that a peaceful expression crossed his face."^[7] Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Lincoln Administration, Maunsell Bradhurst Field wrote, "I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing."^[8][9] The President’s secretary, John Hay, saw "a look of unspeakable peace came upon his worn features".^[10]

• Thanks! I’ve made that addition. Let's see how it fares. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UpdateNerd, I just wanted to say there was no need to list the above merger at WP:PM as being "done" if you were going to do it yourself anyway: the page is for people who are unsure how to tag and perform the merger themselves, and are asking for help in doing it. In any case, there was no point in tagging it for a proposed merger if you were going to carry it out yourself anyway a few hours later, as you did – either do the merger boldly straight away and see if someone reverts it, in which case follow WP:BRD: or tag the pages and wait a week or two to see if anybody contributes to the discussion.

You also shouldn't have deleted the page, but redirected it to the page of the merged article: an admin has corrected your mistake, so don't worry about this now... just wanted to let you know for next time. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Richard3120, I gathered that as I went. I didn't delete the page, just flagged it and someone did the redirect. Now I remember that a redirect is the proper way to go. My first time doing the merger process so I wanted to be thorough. Thanks for bearing with my newb mistake & clarifying the process for the next time. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem – looking at the past versions of the two pages, I think you were right to carry out the bold merger. No harm done. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's reverted again, I recommend waiting longer (WP:MERGECLOSE for more information). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I hadn't seen that page or time limit. I'd been told to just go for it if it seemed incontrovertible per WP:BOLD. It's in my watchlist should I need to reprocess it. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hitler body.png, which you've attributed to https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-hitler. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I restored my edits with justification for doing so. You can see the footage of the Soviets' arrival here. (Ignore the Youtube user's title for the video, which is inaccurate.) History.com and other documentaries' use of the footage proves it came from the USSR footage made in Berlin, not some fake. (Also, the bullet wounds match what is described in the article, and the skin deformation shows evidence of partial, but not complete burning at that point.) UpdateNerd (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove deletion nominations from images you have uploaded. Wait for an administrator to review. Your addition of the photo has been challenged. Per the WP:BRD cycle, you need to proceed to the talk page and discuss, not re-add your edit. I have opened a thread at the article talk page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler#I have removed an image, where you are welcome to add comments. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue your POV editing on this article, making the conspiracy theories seem more creditable ny changing phrasing, I will ask for a topi ban for you. You must stop. Your next violation of WP:NPOV will result in a report to WP:ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on cleaning up Star Wars and List of Star Wars films and television series. The unliateral edits by CapLiber and others were making it chaotic. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope it's a Wookiee cookie! UpdateNerd (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Li in Neo-Confucianism is not to be confused with Li in Confucianism. One is 理, the other is 禮. In Classical Chinese, the difference is both semantically and orthographically obvious. I have removed your merge proposal. Thank you for your understanding.----Sunzhai (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, [1] a short piece about the CIA investigating a report that Hitler lived in Columbia does not support adding the qualifier "most" to the fact that historians and other experts reject the idea that Hitler didn;t commit suicide in the bunker and instead escaped to South America. The CIA investigates things, that's their job -- they are not historians or scientific experts, nor, in fact, did they report any truth to the claim.

I've warned you before that if you continue to try to water down Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death to make the theories look more acceptable than they are, you would be reported at AN/I and a topic ban sought to prevent you from editing the article. You must stop this behavior.

I suggest that Diannaa, Kierzek and K.e.coffman might like to contribute to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I added actually states that most historians believe he died in Berlin. The headline is insignificant. But I recognize that the proper way to push for the change would be to obtain consensus, so I won't try to add it again myself. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateNerd, BMK is correct! Remember, "if ten people tell you you're drunk...", you best lie down. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making BOLD edits in good faith is what Wikipedia is all about. If you disagree with a single edit you can just revert it, ideally by stating which part of a policy was being broken. I don't have an agenda to weaken the article, just make it better. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is trumped by WP:V and WP:consensus and WP:RS and don't forget WP:Deadhorse, in the back of your mind, which is what this is. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True about consensus, etc., but dead horse is a moot point. The article I cited (using the phrase most historians) is post-2009, when the DNA testing was done. I'm not saying that this has caused all modern historians to revise their position, but the ones that believe in science most likely will. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the "assassination" section on the Abraham Lincoln page, can you change the words “According to eyewitnesses, he face was fixed in a smile when he expired” to “According to some accounts, at his last drawn breath, on the morning after the assassination, he smiled broadly and then expired”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.65.40 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording is simpler and makes more sense. Did you want to emphasize that only some eyewitnesses reported this, or was there another part that was looking inaccurate? UpdateNerd (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one; add in these words before the John Hay source and it have it be a part of it. "John Hay, the president's personal secretary, observed that "a look of unspeakable peace came over his worn features."^[1]

While edits are welcome that are helpful, you seem to be becoming obsessed with changing and making additions to this GA rated article. Since you have not worked on bringing an article up to GA before, let me tell you that this article has been well vetted and the words used, sentence structure, paragraph placements have been poured over as to detail and consensus of the WP:RS sources; also as to grammar and frankly agreement of the editors. Some of your edits/additions have been fine, but you are now making wholesale changes and moving paragraphs around. This is becoming disruptive. If this continues the article could lose its GA rating. Therefore, you may be reverted, especially when you do not have agreement/consensus for said changes and additions. Especially, an article such as this, we do not want to add speculation and non-verified conjecture or something merely reported by some unknown and unnamed person. If you have questions, I will try to answer them and Diannaa and Beyond My Ken may want to comment, as well. Please also see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How will I get a consensus if nobody talks on the discussion page that I have opened?

All I want is to add to the heading that Spain participated in the war. JamesOredan (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait longer than a day for a conversation to occur. I’ll share my point of view there rather than explaining where no one will see it. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted an edition claiming that the information that Spain participated in the war already appears in the header, but on the other hand France also appears at the beginning of the heading and afterwards it is also mentioned that it participated in other paragraphs.

What kind of joke is this? JamesOredan (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a part you can change for the assassination section on Abraham Lincoln; add in these words before the John Hay source and separate it from the witnesses who described Lincoln smiling when he died. "John Hay, the president's personal secretary, observed that "a look of unspeakable peace came over his worn features."^[1]

Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing effort to WP:OWN this article by making frequent small changes to the content, and then reverting anyone who changes what you do is getting to be quite annoying. I suggest that you back off, unless you relish being brought to ANI for your behavior. Instead of reverting, discuss your objections on the talk page, and stop making many frequent tiny changes -- you are not the only editor of this article, nor are you the final arbiter of what goes into it. Please read and understand WP:OWN and adjust your behavior accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to force my changes (see the talk page for why the redundancy argument failed). I reverted your format changes made without edit summaries, which are always good to include so other editors can understand your reasoning. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love the work you have done with the Star Wars franchise, with the neat organization that correlates to the franchise and not the finer details for the individual pages. As such, I wanted to approach you, as I could use some serious help with the Alien franchise page. The whole page is a mess, with content from a separate crossover franchise - AvP - spilling over and all sorts of garbled nonsense everywhere. Would you be interested in diving in with me, to help fix up that trainwreck of a page? By the way, I see that nice IMDb link-- very impressive! Here's mine! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'm fairly knowledgeable about that franchise and the ones it connects to, so I'd be happy to contribute as I have time. Cheers! UpdateNerd (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's splendid! The biggest problems facing the page are that it's constantly bombarded with content from AvP which deserves at most a minor mention near the bottom of the page, plus the duplication of content from other pages. People don't seem to understand that AvP isn't the same franchise. So, if you jump into it at the same time, we can tackle this page! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it, but probably not much before the next week. In general, it's all about relevance. Articles on fiction don't necessarily need to be segregated based on in-universe franchise canonicity. What's most logical is referring to what has come before in real-world time, with references. If there are mentions to things that weren't yet produced because of an in-universe connection, it should be removed unless somehow relevant, and with even better sourcing.

In SW lingo, the original trilogy articles shouldn't reference the sequels that much, because they hadn't yet been made. But the sequel articles should mention the original trilogy, as those films contain many references to the older material. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! Sorry for not following up; life got ahead of me! There was a bit of an AN/I battle with a disruptive editor, but now there's a cleanup effort for Alien (franchise). Would you be able to help me with the Theatrical films section? I love how streamlined the Star Wars page is, with there not being the individual subsections - aside from the identifying series - so, I believe that would behoove Alien. Would you happen to have time this week to help me condense it? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: Thanks for the heads up. I have limited time this week/month, but I will take a look and work on anything that stands out to me! UpdateNerd (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was edit-warring; I instated a different version which attempted to address the point of confusion. Considering you also reverted yourself, wasn't this warning was a little preemptive? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it that, but I didn't repeat any single edit, and I was clear about that in my edit summaries. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Concerning your calls for lower-casing to president of the United States? you should also include vice president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please not de-capitalize at George Washington & John Adams articles. Get a consensus for all the US presidents & vice presidents bios, first. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, I was planning to just start with the first president and vice president to see if any logical objections arise. Obviously such a change would need to be across the board. I respect the consensus process, but it's pretty unnecessary when the MoS has clear guidelines. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you bring your suggestions to the Donald Trump article. Be advised though, the consensus there is for President of the United States. GoodDay (talk)

@GoodDay, whether the same rule applies to the acting President is another conversation entirely. Since you reverted my edit, you should be able to explain why we should ignore what the MoS or style guides say. I think the suggestion that a consensus conversation needs to happen on every president page is ridiculous. The style guides are clear, although not necessarily for the current President. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency across all bios of US presidents & vice presidents should be maintained. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay Which should, in turn, be consistent with the manual of style, which as it states in the lead, always has precedence "if any contradiction arises." UpdateNerd (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make your changes in backwards order in the pros, starting with Barack Obama & Joe Biden. PS: But don't decapitalize in the infoboxes titles. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've mentioned your preferred plans, at the talkpage of the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be making such changes (as you did to Joe Biden & Mike Pence), until you get a consensus to do so, across all US prez & vice prez bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'd noticed, but I've undone most of your changes to lede of Pyramid of Unas. The boat pits are definitely there, "but whether they actually held wooden boats like that of Khufu or were just symbolic is debatable." From Clayton 1994, p. 63. Some sources, like Grimal 1992, p. 123, argue that the limestone pits are the boats without wooden barques, while others argue that it's likely they did contain wooden barques, like Verner 2001d pp. 337-338. These different interpretations are the source of the speculative writing. For future reference, the lede should generally not contain citations, though I always add one plus a footnote for the dating since it's not worth restating in the body of the article. Hope that clarifies the revert (I kept your change of tense, since the pits haven't grown legs and walked away). Do check the body of the article, which should contain a sourced statement and all relevant citations next to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2], I don't think it helps the situation to legitimize the misguided notion that we need to rehash the guideline at article level. I reiterate this. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss An RfC seems like a good idea. But where should it occur, if not at the individual article level? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of process, I feel that any new RfC should be started by someone who (1) disagrees with the current guidance and (2) can make a case that the current guidance has not received an adequate community-level hearing. If they are not prepared to start one and make that case, resistance to compliance edits should be viewed as obstructionist disruptive editing, which is sanctionable behavior. In my view it harms the project in the long term for editors to take any other approach, even if that might be expedient in the short term.
That said, if I were to start such an RfC I would do it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and advertise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, and anywhere else I could think of that might have a particular interest in the subject. If I lacked a lot of experience formulating RfCs (I don't), I would first consult with someone who has that experience on framing, as many an RfC has been derailed by poor framing. If someone complained that "Hey! This belongs at WT:MOS!!", I would calmly reply that I wanted maximum exposure and I've found that little discussion notices at WP:VPP don't attract much attention. There are no bright-line rules about such things. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much work for me relating to things I don't understand—I'm just a grammar nut. Feel free to direct anyone else to the process you suggested, though. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already invited guideline opponents to do this, multiple times in various venues, and so far they prefer to avoid close scrutiny of the issue. At least some of them have the necessary experience. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect they know it wouldn't go their way. As for guideline supporters, I'm not going to direct anyone else to an approach that, as I said, I feel harms the project in the long term. As I suggested in the opener, I think the Trump discussion would be better off without your last comment, and it's not too late to remove it until it has a reply. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all the tips, but I think that link show guideline opponents logic that might lead them to being less oppositional. I don't see how its presence hurts the process, although I rephrased it to summarize my thoughts, and hopefully sound less confrontational. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It harms the project by legitimizing the view that MoS issues affecting many articles should be addressed at an individual articles, where "the strongest cases, the greatest participation, and the most rigorous possible examination" do not and cannot occur. A bunch of cursory looks at the issue don't add up to a thorough look at the issue. You're not the only one doing this by any means, but I hoped to convert just one. If you're still not convinced, I'm well practiced at shrug-and-move-on. After over 5 years my capacity for resignation is great. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your point of view, although I'm having a hard time understanding it. You present a "process over content" argument, but I'm not concerned about the content; I'm only pointing out an issue with the form. If this actually were a discussion about whether or not to include certain prose, then all of your arguments would be fully justified (and I'm not saying they're not here). But this is a question of whether or not to follow the MOS, which to my mind does not need consensus to decide, although I understand that forcing my view by rereverting edits would be viewed negatively. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, we seem to differ on semantics. To me, the choice of p or P is content, as is anything else that a reader sees in an article, no matter how small.
this is a question of whether or not to follow the MOS, which to my mind does not need consensus to decide - Exactly. So why are you seeking a consensus to decide it, instead of simply saying what you just said? Comments like yours invite and encourage counter-productive behavior by other editors at that article, and perpetuate it at all articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although consensus on the local specific issue would be great, my comments were actually not seeking that, but rather consensus to value the MOS generally over past local consensus to ignore it, which could then justifiably be applied to the other affected articles, rather than having the same conversation over and over here, there and everywhere. Since applying the change to this article in particular seems to have been the most contentious in the past, it would make sense to raise the issue there, no? UpdateNerd (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After 10 days and 2,200 words, we've seen participation from nine (9) editors, some of it consisting of one or two sentences from that editor. Nine is not many compared to the 50+ one typically sees at a maximum-exposure RfC. The vast majority of the discussion has been about process. The little discussion about content has comprised precious little substantive evidence, such as a comprehensive survey of relevant style guides. The recognized master builder of such cases, SMcCandlish, hasn't even made an appearance, probably because (1) he, like me, is philosophically strongly opposed to rehashing settled MoS issues at article level, and (2) he knows it wouldn't be worth his effort because so many editors would say that any result at Donald Trump applies only to Donald Trump (logical fallacy notwithstanding). There is no way any closer could divine any consensus at all from that discussion, which means that it was a complete waste of time. Given all of that, please explain how it made any sense to raise it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss are you sure Village Pump is the right place? It states in its header that it's the place to discuss changes to policy, not whether to implement them. My concern is with the latter. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you changed your mind as to what you said here? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to reconsider and clicked on the first link of your suggestion, but as I just stated, am not sure that's the right course of action. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point as to the VPP instructions, but Village Pump is still the only place to get maximum exposure. I suppose you could do the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and frame it as a proposal rather than a question. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) would be the only other appropriate VP page, but it doesn't get enough attention in my opinion.
I should reiterate that I don't recommend that editors do complex RfC framing solo until they have some years of experience with it. This may seem like a simple question, but it can get complicated quickly; for example JOBTITLES has multiple parts and an editor may oppose one part while supporting the rest. I don't claim to be perfect, mind you, but two heads are sometimes better than one. I would be willing to work with you in a sandbox and would volunteer User:Mandruss/sandbox if needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SMcCandlish: Any opinion as to whether such an RfC is a good move at this time? (UN, this didn't generate a notification; any notification has to be coded in the same edit as the signature.) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit to wade through, and this will consequently be kind of long, since it involves various different kinds of community strategy things: First, arguing whether "president" or "President" is proper English is not how to go about this. There is no official standards-issuing body for our language (unlike in French and Spanish, though those bodies are actually somewhat ignored anyway). See Prescriptive grammar and Linguistic description. It's a matter of how English, on average, is written in high-quality, contemporary materials, and what the preponderance of modern English-language style guides say to do. Those are the primary factors on which our own style guide is based. The trend since at least the late 1980s has been away from "auto-capitalizing" these (or any other) job titles, and only capitalizing them when directly attached to names.

Second, we don't need to have another RfC after we had an RfC pretty recently, and previous consensus discussion before that, in multiple venues, which even specifically included the US president. Re-re-re-RfCing this stuff is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING at worst, and tedious rehash at best (sometimes taken for tendentious). As in all style matters, it's simply impossible to please everyone (the important point is that editorial conflict about that particular peccadillo come to an end – you don't have to like WP's rules, but do follow them here).

So, yes, we should not be re-fighting this out article by article. The entire reason we have WP:AT policy and the WP:MOS guidelines is stop that behavior. These pages evolved because of the disruptive time-sink of editors recycling the same arguments in perennial "style wars" over and over and over again. It drains editorial productivity, strains editorial relations and collaboration, and produces confusingly inconsistent output. WP:IAR is only ever accepted by the community as a valid rationale when the reasons for a divergence are obvious common-sense matters and the rule is clearly faulty for a particular case, not because someone doesn't like the rule and wished it didn't apply to "their" page.

Mandruss is correct that the burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of someone alleging that an actual WP guideline somehow doesn't have consensus. The community almost never buys that argument. If someone insists on re-RfCing this, I would suggest that the proper venue is WT:MOSBIO, "advertised" at WP:VPPRO and WP:VPPOL. Otherwise, use WP:VPPRO itself, since this would in fact be a proposal, to change extant guidelines away from a consensus that was arrived at through RfCs and reaffirmed in later ones. Expect to have to prove your case, and to be contradicted by people who own and can cite pretty much every style guide ever published for the English language, and who have a lot of experience using tools like Google Ngrams correctly (and pointing out where failure to account for the tools' limitations produces statistically invalid results). It's "uphill, both ways", so it will probably be a futile waste of energy. Especially given that the first rule of MOS:CAPS is do not apply capitals where reliable sources do not consistently do so, and we know beyond any doubt that RS do not consistently capitalize "president" in the US political context. It's already a lost cause.

Keep in mind also (with regard to this and anything like it) that the community is tired of "style wars" and increasingly disinclined to listen to demands for special exceptionalism. Every time someone launches a "gimme my special style because I say so" RfC (especially at VPPOL itself), it poisons editorial patience for more vexing style matters that really do need a consensus discussion (not a re-re-re-discussion of a matter that's already been consistently settled in one direction). See for example the low turnout here; I expected roughly 4× as many respondents, especially given how widely this RfC was advertised both on P&G talk pages and wikiproject ones, and that it would affect over 1000 articles. People's eyes just glaze over: "Yet another F'ing capitalization squabble. <yawn>".

What I would do with this [p|P]resident stuff is just leave it alone. We already have a consensus arrived at via RfC. It will take time to percolate through articles and through editors' heads, and if it takes two years or five to clean it all up via WP:RM, including some temporary reversals at this article or that one, then so be it. Many things are like this; it really doesn't matter (WP:NODEADLINE). Any WP:STONEWALL behavior by a handful of "resist or die" types cannot last forever. If it actually turns out that the MoS or naming conventions guidelines on a point like this really don't reflect consensus any longer (WP:CCC), this will become clear if several years of RM discussion consistently go against what the guidelines say to do. (That possibility is why I opened the above-linked VPPOL RfC about breeds, but that brings us full circle to the point that turnout is so low, any result will have dubious real consensus value.)

In closing, I would offer the following: I entirely understand the feeling that parts of the MoS are "wrong" and the desire to change it. I arrived here with same feeling. There are at least 50 things in MoS I would have written very differently. However, I've become one of MoS's top five (probably top two) shepherds against willy-nilly changes, because I quickly realized that the value of such guidelines is in their stability not in the exact wording of their line items. Style issues in particular are mostly arbitrary. It matters more that editors follow a set of rules instead of fighting all the time over trivia.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very thorough reply @SMcCandlish, and I'm sure I'll have a lot to respond to. If I understand correctly, it's been previously decided at a high level that the MoS reflects the proper capitalization of job titles, and yet local consensus "trumps" the rule. So, because we don't want to restart old RFCs at a high level, it more or less just comes down to whether or not consensus can be reached on the individual talk pages (such as the one begun here), correct? There seems to be more consensus for following the MOS at that particular conversation, with little opposition, except for disagreement on the best way to incorporate wikilinks (a trifling detail which can be changed later). @GoodDay has stated his willingness (in addition to myself) to help carry out edits on related pages for consistency, and has helpfully listed many of the categories below. As far as I can see, the only reason for me not to reincorporate my edit is ArbCom, and literally anyone else at anytime could state their justification for reinstating it, although my hands are tied. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus required" rule (bullet 2 of the ArbCom restrictions) has been removed and replaced with an "enforced BRD" rule. The new rule is still in a trial mode and apparently very tentative so I haven't tried very hard to understand it. But what I said here clearly no longer applies (IIRC I had reverted your CR rule-violating revert). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'it's been previously decided at a high level that the MoS reflects the proper capitalization of job titles, and yet local consensus "trumps" the rule.' That's a mis-statement. WP:CONLEVEL policy clearly contradicts that idea. What happens in reality: MoS has (in various wording) the same basic rule throughout it: if RS (in general, not just from a particular field or publisher) which are about or which cover a subject almost uniformly do something stylistically for that subject in particular, and it isn't MoS's default, then that overrides MoS's default. This is the WP:IAR escape valve. What also happens occasionally and temporarily is that a closer who is either inexperienced or who is supervoting may close in favor of a variance away from MoS even when the sources don't support it (as in the case of a few pages about the American presidency, and we know for absolute fact that RS do not consistently capitalize it when not attached to an officeholder's name). This is actually a violation of WP:CONSISTENCY policy, and flies in the face of hundreds of prior moves of articles with job-title names, so it will be fixed later. You could bet money on it. You seem to have the idea that such a close is a stable consensus to vary from MoS for no reason other than the argument to emotion and special pleading (in this case American exceptionalism) presented by whoever showed up that week. I assure you it is not.

We just don't typically re-RM something immediately, because it's annoying and usually fruitless (the same active editors will show up with the same arguments and evidence). We let it alone for 6 months or a year, to give people time to rethink, to find different evidence, to come up with a different argument, and for other editors to become involved. There is WP:NODEADLINE, and WP isn't going to fall apart if an article is at a poor name (or has poor in-article style) for a while. It may take longer than average to fix the inconsistency at Trump-related articles because of the high emotions surrounding them and the additional ArbCom red tape.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest resistance to de-capitalizing in bio articles, appears to be at articles of American federal government officials (US presidents, US vice presidents, secretaries of State, secretaries of Treasury, CIA directors, Supreme Court members, US senators, US representatives, etc etc), but not at bios of state-level only officials (i.e governors, lieutenant governors, state attorneys general, state senators etc etc), which some are capitalized, but others aren't, from what I can tell. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I've noted elsewhere, it's because old editions (like 1980s and earlier) of the Associated Press Stylebook and several other American style guides said to capitalize American national office titles, and many of us thus grew up with that being common, and us even being taught to use it as a "standard" (mostly people in their 40s and older). But it is not the present reality of American publishing, and has never been the reality of publishing in English more generally.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see FA Guy Fawkes is proposed for WP:TFA on November 5, 2019 [3] by KingEuronIIIGreyjoy. However, maybe a little postponement might be more to the point: 13 April 2020 marks his 450th birthday. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your contributions. You've improperly uploaded some copyrighted image to Wikimedia Commons without permission of copyright holder, however. I've removed them for the related articles and tagged them for deletion, but wanted to explain to you what you did incorrectly. Commons is only for free images, meaning those in the public domain based on their age or location of origin; images you have created yourself for which you own the copyright and are granting unrestricted permission for their use on any Wikimedia site; or images by someone else for which the copyright holder has granted unrestricted permissions. Images like File:Darth Vader's advanced TIE fighter.png are not owned by you, so you cannot upload them to Commons. Also, know that making a scan or a screenshot does not make you the copyright holder (you don't seem to have done this, I'm just letting you know). Photographs like File:Captain Phasma costume.jpg are acceptable for Commons if they are taken by you with your camera and you are releasing all rights.

Non-free images can be uploaded to regular Wikipedia space as "fair use", under specific conditions (see Wikipedia:Non-free content for the full guideline). Basically, a copyrighted image like File:Princess Leia's characteristic hairstyle.jpg is acceptable in Princess Leia because it is the primary means of illustrating the subject of the article, as explained in the required fair use rationale on the image page. This image would not be acceptable in Carrie Fisher because non-free images generally cannot be used in biographical articles (an exception being if the person is deceased and there are no readily-available free images of them, as with Margaret Whitton). It would also not be appropriate to place the Leia image in every Star wars article; each article should use non-free images sparingly, restricting them to title cards and significant elements that help understanding of the topic. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TAnthony, the images were (rightly or not) uploaded to the source website under CC-0. Since they're derivative of models, not sculptures, I'm not sure whether the copyright is violated. They were perhaps wrongly uploaded to begin with, but it really depends on what's being depicted. Are they showing copyrighted models designed and colored by the trademark holder, or are they fanmade 3D models of a trademarked subject? As long as the material isn't being used commercially, and the art itself isn't copyrighted, perhaps they qualify as CC. Without being able to tell how the images were made, though, I think perhaps a low-resolution fair use tag would be the only safe way to use them, e.g. as the main image of an article.

I don't contest their removal, but perhaps you have some thoughts about their possible legitimacy. I really don't mind their removal as decorative plot summary elements, but some of them could be very useful for depicting specific story elements, e.g. particular vehicles. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to you. While the source pages of the images from clker.com don't seem to adequately establish rights for their use, I did not notice that the pixbay images have a clear Commons license. I have rescinded the deletion notices on those two images, and added File:Darth Vader's advanced TIE fighter.png to the TIE fighter article in good faith.— TAnthony^Talk 04:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all; it appeared otherwise to you. Actually, the images on clker.com are also stated to be CC0 at the Terms of Use & Disclaimer link that appears on each image url. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UpdateNerd, I added (OT) to Star Wars Trilogy because it had been added to OT (not by me) and I was trying to clean up the DAB page. All entries on acronym DAB pages should include the acronym in the target article. Before I removed entries, I do a Google search to see if it is commonly used, and it seemed that many sites use OT for original trilogy, so I added it. However, I'm not very familiar with the culture of Star Wars and have no objection to it being removed. If this really isn't a reasonable acronym, I'll remove it from OT as well. Leschnei (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: thanks for bringing that to my attention, as I didn't realize that was the case. "OT" is usually only seen on fansites, and not in an official context, which is what is represented on most of the Star Wars articles. So unless we change the "PT" and "ST" articles to link to the respective Star Wars pages, I would suggest its removal from the "OT" article. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me; I'll take care of it. This is why acronym pages drive me crazy - they collect so much garbage. Leschnei (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UN, this article has had a ton of editor attention over many years, trying to keep the hype down, the POV neutral, etc. When you make a long string of edits that starts by changing misinterpreted to interpreted, you're going to need to engage in some discussion. And please be patient, go slow, make independently undoable edits, etc., if you want to avoid wholesale reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: An "interpretation" can still be a misinterpretation. That was based on 2 against 1 RS using different wording (Nixon p. 93 being the tie-breaker weakly supporting a 'correct' interpretation). I'm not opposed to reverting the wording, but why did you revert a bunch of other changes which were well-sourced? As a rule (because of the problem of "golden numberism"), any addition I've made is verifiable in the citation. That wasn't the first of a string of edits, just an arbritrary point that you noticed, which can be verified. Please change only the parts you reject; I find the notion that the article had any prior stable status hard to be taken seriously. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited more discussion at Talk:Golden ratio. My objection was not to that one point; that was just an example of the kind of POV change that needs to be discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateNerd, do you have comprehension issues? First of all, in relation to your first edit, unless you cannot read the sentence, the sentence did not imply that he was any of the professions ascribed to him before his voyages to the New World. Additionally, he was neither a colonist, nor an explorer, before his four voyages. Secondly, since when does the word "colonist" imply being a governor? Really, all of the mariners on Columbus's voyages were all governors? Interesting concept... Actually, the term governor being more specific and more encompassing as a higher rank, would supercede a colonist who is simply a participant in a human colony (your argument is: "colonist' already an umbrella term which includes his governorship")...Do you just make changes for the sake of things? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenmitchell: I never said "colonist" implies "governor", but since he was only a governor after finding new lands, it really creates a flow issue to introduce that specific title just before saying he went on multiple voyages. We wouldn't say "Nixon was a resigned president who became the president," would we? (It's also already near the top of the infobox.) You can argue for the change, but you'd have to get consensus on the Columbus talk page. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the constant Han Solo and Darth Vader references to the films cast as both characters are long dead in the franchise's running order similar to all the constant comments by others that Fisher had died and this was her last film.

Han Solo only needs to be mentioned once and that is for Kylo Ren's parentage - if that is OK?

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to readd the citation needed sections. I didn't mean to remove them. My other edits are explained in the summary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbowofpeace: Regarding the Eastern and Southern Europeans which include Jews; this is what the sources say. It wasn't any other Jewish people who were singled out for their race. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UN. Thanks for the ping thanks on G's article. I'm not sure if my edit effected the one you made earlier today so you might want to double check just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 10:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Hi, no I don't think anything was effected. Just some minor copyediting of the removed content. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. I appreciate your checking on things. MarnetteD|Talk 10:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the symbolism of royalty and legitimacy. Previously illustrating the specific paragraphs (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excalibur&direction=prev&oldid=887825139). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for your helpful edit to Star Wars: Episode IX Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How can you say that a poor quality reproduction "looked better before"? Beside File:A portrait of Leonardo, by Francesco Melzi.jpg is a recent copy from a museum, so it is certainly better anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the resolution is lower doesn't mean it's lower quality. The contrast has been changed to make it easier to see the drawing's subject, which is the subject of the article. If it were an article on the portrait then an accurate rendering would be required, but the article is about Da Vinci, so the most accessible rendering should be used. Also, the higher resolution version has shadows which look poor in the infobox. At any rate, I added "other version" links to both images so the user can easily find the other. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made another version with more contrast, and I edited the shadows. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Looks great to me. I made that the new version of the PNG with a transparent background. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to research a response on the Star Trek list page, I looked into what Star Wars did on the same topic. It would seem the lists as created are similar. However, I also see that the changes to these lists/articles have been quite recent and that you have played a large role in both of the changes. I don't believe that either the List of Star Trek films and television series nor the List of Star Wars films and television series as written actually should be classified as lists. I believe lists for both topics are appropriate, but the majority of the prose on the pages should be spun off into separate articles. I don't want you to take this personally. I have been in situations where I have but a lot of work into certain articles on wikipedia and I don't like people seemingly undoing everything (though I dont think I am advocating this). While I don't believe that you have reached a true concensus on the Star Trek page, I do see that the Star Wars list is a product of a lot of discussion. Because this is a discussion on now lists should be styled in general, I have posted discussion on the Wikiproject Lists. I would appreciate if you could contribute to the discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have read what you said more carefully. After looking at the MCU lists, and seeing that they are both Featured Lists, I guess lists can look like that. Like you, I don't paricularly have the energy to reopen the discussion for Star Wars are Star Trek. I would say that WP:SIZERULE would suggest that the Star Wars page with a size of 156,885 bytes and Star Trek with a size of 81,509 bytes should be split into separate movie and list pages. Again, I think a lot of good work has been put in these pages. I appreciate you hard work. Oldag07 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldag07: Thanks for your feedback again. I don't consider the above lists settled issues, and agree with you that a list article should actually feel like one. The MCU "list" is slightly ridiculous with its sections of purely prosaic content. I also understand that, per WP:OTHER, just because a solution works in one arena does not mean it should be applied to other articles (e.g. applying Star Wars logic to Star Trek), but the ST articles had so much cruft and seeming lack of attention that I went forward anyways. I wasn't familiar with WP:STARTREK so wouldn't have known about going there to get more editors to comment. There seemed to be no objection at the time I made those changes. You are the first person to comment on the issue, and I agree that this is part of a larger discussion that should be handled at a higher level, with a guideline also established to dictate further decision-making. I'm happy to contribute to the wikiproject discussion you linked above.

You may also want to comment at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Split proposed to support splitting out the more detailed information to a non-list article. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of copyright is flawed. There was never any requirement for a 1950 copyright to be renewed, because they never had time to expire. They were all extended automatically in January 1978, and again 20 years later. I would've preferred to remove your pointless duplicate image from the Fred Trump article based on the pointlessness of it being a duplicate, but then I noticed that you'd lied about the copyright notice. That's a really bad idea. Just because other web sites don't care doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't. The Foundation is vary careful about it, because WP is just a juicy target for litigation. Tverbeek (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tverbeek: Hold up, I didn't lie. The first portion of the text you initially removed was generated by a template, and indeed misleading that it "was published without a copyright notice". (I probably selected the wrong field uploading the image and didn't read it correctly.) Regardless, PD-US-not renewed, which I believe is the correct licensing tag, explains that works published before 1963 (the year the Brooklyn Eagle went out of business permanently) are in the public domain. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't lie, I just wrote something untrue." Give me a break. And buy some glasses, because if you think those photos don't look alike, there's something serious wrong with your perception. Tverbeek (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just wanted to apologise for that borderline edit war I almost had with you over the Star Wars films being described as "epic space opera films" versus "epic space-opera films". I was trying to decide which talk page I should start a discussion about it on, since the same situation was happening on every Star Wars film article (you forgot to initially revert my edits to Rogue One and Solo: A Star Wars Story though, haha). That's when I came across the Talk:Star Wars#"American epic space opera franchise" vs "American epic space-opera franchise" discussion. I changed my mind about the hyphenation after reading Aikclaes' point that "too many [linked] attributive adjectives makes it hard to decipher without the hyphen". MOS:LINKCLARITY is a relevant guideline to look at. It's kind of funny actually, since I've edited the article for Alien (film) to say that it's a "science-fiction horror film" before, and yet it always returns to being called a "science fiction horror film". –Matthew - (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MatthewHoobin, no problem. I recently changed the description of the movie The Death of Stalin from "a political satire black comedy film" to "a political-satire black-comedy film". We'll see how long it stays like that. ;-) Aikclaes (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aikclaes: Usually modifiers that end in "-ly" or "-al" don't need to be compounded, so I think it would be "a political satire/black-comedy film". UpdateNerd (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UpdateNerd: There's a big difference between words ending with "-ly" (adverb; no hyphen) and "-al" (adjective; hyphen needed). "Political" and "black" are both adjectives. Dashes, like in your suggestion, should be avoided, since it's unclear whether they mean "and" or "or". Aikclaes (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hello all. I would label TDoS a treat to watch but that is pure WP:OR :-) Best regards to everyone. MarnetteD|Talk 03:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still find this issue a bit conflicting. I can understand hyphenating "space opera" or "science fiction" if need be, and I understand the rationale behind hyphenating "political satire black comedy", but "political-satire black-comedy" just looks so off to me. –Matthew - (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having as many as four modifiers in front of a word is what makes it look heavy. The hyphens help the reader understand, and are necessary, but best would be to write it in a different way, for instance "a film in the genres of political satire and black comedy". This phenomenon is called "stacked modifiers". Here's an article about it: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/stacked-modifiers Aikclaes (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could justifiably shorten it to "satirical black-comedy film". Satire can include political themes, and you don't need to get maximally descriptive in a genre description. Otherwise, Star Wars would be an action/adventure/Space Western/Jidaigeki/family/science-fiction/fantasy film. It has elements of all these and more, which is why we simplify it to "epic space-opera film". UpdateNerd (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:The Hutt Gambit.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Conciseness in the appearance section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Star Wars shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Railfan23 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a 3RR noticeboard thread about this. Toa Nidhiki05 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: Five reverts of the same user who tried to introduce sweeping changes without discussion. Kind of like how you reverted me, only I listened to your advice. Just so you know for the discussion, since you flagged me. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your recent changes about the border wall construction, and wanted to mention some information I found:

Before Trump became president, 654 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. Mexico border had primary barriers. As of today, that hasn’t increased.

To date, the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated barriers with new fencing. Some officials including CBP have presented this as an extension of the total barrier, but this is factually incorrect.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/aug/30/donald-trumps-border-wall-how-much-has-really-been/

There have been some misleading statements by officials and others which seem to suggest that this is actually an extension and not a replacement, so it is understandable why you added this. Please make sure to include citations to reliable sources in additions like this in the future. I'm sure that there will be an actual increase at some point, so the issue may need to be revisited with citations soon.

Ofus (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "International English" in WP policies, and it should not be invoked in illegal attempts to enforce American English, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. In any case, afaik International English remains a largely theoretical idea, and there is no agreement as to how particular words should be spelled in it. I've noticed a number of your edits hitting my watchlist which ignore policy. Please be more careful. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Thanks for explaining your reasoning in more detail, as I was not aware of that. Which form of English should be used really comes down to consensus, although I lean personally toward using American English on articles which deal largely with content specific to that country and vice versa. British English is the leading form of the international variants, and is closer to how the language is read worldwide. In any case, articles shouldn't use a mixture of two styles, as is the case on the article I noticed you reverted attempts to make more consistent. All the same, thanks for letting me know your reason for reverting. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't edited the article, just saw the edit summary. Looking at it now, I can't see any ENGVAR indicators before "savior" in late 2018, or current inconsistencies - if you can, let me know. Having spent 300+ years in England, vs about 4 in the US, arguably it has a stronger connection to the UK. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: My mistake, I assumed that the same editor commented here after reverting. The word 'center' is inconsistently spelled 'centre' at one point in the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - fixed that. It was very recent of course. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the bit about the X-rated trading card picture of C-3PO. I had quite forgotten about that little gem (or perhaps not so little) - we need more of this on Wikipedia to lighten the mood! Cnbrb (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tatooine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calabasas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Now/ You're only screwing things up. Go edit something else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [4]

Our MoS says that an article may use either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash, provided it does so consistently. That article used spaced ndash consistently, and a certain amount of effort has gone into achieving and maintaining that consistency. Guidance also says that, when MoS allows multiple ways of doing something, editors should not mass change an article to suit their personal preference.

Unfortunately that edit slipped through the cracks, it's too late to simply undo it, and I'm not going to ask that you reverse the changes (especially since you would probably refuse to do so anyway). But don't do that again.

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Thanks for pointing that out. I'd misremembered or misunderstood the MoS & would be happy to fix that change, and also edit more carefully regarding dashes in the future. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that and apologize for pre-judging you based on experience with others. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three years on, and you're still reverting these. You remind me of a certain kind of orifice... 174.95.58.122 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...frig around with bottom of the page section names to suit your own (rather unusual) preferences. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guy Fawkes mask; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never changed anything back; I tried to make a compromise edit. But I will leave it for future discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have contributed to this article. I appreciate you may have acted in good faith, but please show respect by not vandalising it. Obscurasky (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Star Wars (film) used to read: "Kurtz has corroborated that they wanted to include an episode number to emulate the chapter numbering used in the Flash Gordon serial, and that they had considered a high number for the first movie from the beginning."

You edited it so that now it reads: "Kurtz has corroborated that they had originally considered using a higher episode number for the original film to emulate the chapter numbering used in the Flash Gordon serial."

But the Flash Gordon serial had nothing to do with their decision to use a higher episode number for the first Star Wars movie. The Flash Gordon serial started with episode 1. It was only relevant to their decision to include an episode number, not to the episode number they chose. - 2603:9000:E40B:7500:ECDD:7477:6678:4D25 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Kurtz said ("if you went to Saturday morning pictures and came in and saw episode eight of Flash Gordon"...) reflects that. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actual vote in the HJC is today. The report and counter-report were presented to the HJC a few days ago and the mark-up began yesterday. The PTB have said that we cannot go further with the necessary new full article without "consensus" so what do we do? Do we just call the article the impeachment process and then have the votes and the trial there, or what?Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: I'm sure the article will be renamed from "impeachment inquiry..." if the House vote passes. Just wait. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defo no suspicious undeclared COI editing going on here, no siree! 😂😂😂 174.95.58.122 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've started a discussion re this issue at Talk:Guy Fawkes mask. Just letting you know in case you want to weigh in. :)

- 2A02:560:4235:6700:E590:3D43:25F0:D2E9 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For articles such as Luke Skywalker I was wondering you might know how a reusable template might be made that could be reproduced in footnotes to references to Star Wars (film). I like the idea of a footnote because it could add reference to the A New Hope title (especially for readers that may not know it was called by the original title) but would do so less intrusively. A template would allow reproduction of the footnote in parallel articles. Ideas would be welcome.

GregKaye 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: That's a great idea! I've not yet made a template, but would be happy to contribute to the note. I would suggest that it say something like "Later subtitled Episode IV – A New Hope", linking to §Addition of subtitles. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the template in action now at Luke Skywalker. You can just paste {{EpIV}} to add the footnote to any page. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, I've started putting together a basic template which I'm yet to save. One issue is whether the mouse over for the footnote will still display the footnote content if it comes out of a template. I'll need to experiment.

I'm also thinking to see if a move can be made from "subtitling" to "titling" terminologies as per new topic: Talk:Star_Wars_(film)#Propose_using_"episode_title"_to_describe_to_the_later_part_of_"Star_Wars:_Episode_*_(A/The)_*_(of)_*"_title_sequences. There's another thought. GregKaye 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that there would be merit in presenting events in the article in predominantly chronological order. The chronology is close but a presentation of dates would enable readers to assess the information for themselves. GregKaye 20:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wording on the film's page could go something like "The first public record of texts Episode IV and A New Hope are on a title page.. " but I'm not sure how this would fit in with the rest of the sentence. At present I've put first published as I wasn't sure on "first introduced". Thinking about it maybe that could be "publically introduced". I'll not reedit now. GregKaye 22:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome I hate that new Surname of Palpatine the nerds are going crazy for that came from that stupid TARKEN Book. His first name is "Emperor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcardun (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxcardun: Totally! It's cool when it's mentioned on the character page and explained properly, but it's never said in the films so it should reflect the credits. However, recently it's been whispered that Lucas decided on the name for the Underworld series, and just let the Tarkin novel introduce it. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? (Not to mention its top right corner.) --Brogo13 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brogo13: Wikipedia articles always caption images in the body of an article. Since the article is about the Trump wall, not the Mexico–United States barrier, we should keep it clear what the picture is of. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting me. I hella misread the sentence and thought I saw something like my ridiculous title here. Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC) @Millahnna: Haha, no problem. Cheers! UpdateNerd (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, concerning your edits of my references: sorry if i used references that are not allowed - i thought they were significant. Can you indicate a page listing allowed types of references? --Fah (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fah: Sure, no offense intended. WP:RS is a good place to start. We stay away from sources that may violate copyright and especially those like fan wikis which anyone can write. If it's an article from a news site, that's usually much better. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase isn't made up by CNN but from "several officials familiar with the new approach". So I've attributed it to the officials now. This is verified by NYT, CNN, and WSP (all WP:RSPSOURCES) so please don't remove it again. "Controlling the messaging" is from the title of the NYT, and there are nothing redundant or unclear here. Also Wikipedia is a public place so no edit is done "secretly". Regards. -- Akira😼CA 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akira CA: The phrase came straight from the CNN article. We shouldn't copy & paste (esp. without attribution) when we can paraphrase. "Controlling the messaging" is 100% redundant, because it refers to the White House instructing health officials to coordinate with the VP, which is exactly what the next sentence says. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UpdateNerd: no it appears in all three sources (NYT, CNN, and WSP), not as opinion but news. Given the number of citations at the end of the sentence, attribution through footnote is enough per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. -- Akira😼CA 11:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akira CA: You miss the point. I never said it was opinion and not news.

My actual points: There's no reason to say the same thing twice. It's confusing to do that. Every word should count on such a long article, not restate the same thing twice in the same sentence. Further, it makes zero sense to introduce the White House as the subject of the sentence and then drop in quoted text without clarifying who said it. Putting "according to several officials familiar with the new approach" at the end doesn't make it clear that the quoted text specifically was being referred to. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence starts with "White House has been criticised" (by many sources on different matters) not what the White House have acutally be confirmed for doing, so it makes sense. Also I think the attribution issue is resolved? -- Akira😼CA 11:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "Controlling the messaging" is not redundant because it clarifies why and how the following sentence is a criticism. It is backed by reliable source too. Clarity is very important on Wikipedia while adding three words is negligible to the length of the article. (marginal profit) -- Akira😼CA 11:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akira CA: Let me try to explain in detail. I think these issues are grammatical.

1) If you say 'The White House has been criticised for directing health officials to "coordinate all statements"', it has the effect of implying that you're quoting the directions of the White House.

2) That would make sense if you said "controlling the messaging by directing health officials...", rather than including a random comma in the middle, which makes it two points, not one. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) No...Using XXX as the subject in "XXX has been criticized for ..." is commonplace in Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Such expression is concise and widely accepted on Wikipedia when based on reliable sources. I don't see problems within it. However we can leave quotation marks to aviod ambiguity. -- Akira😼CA 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) What you said is what you've deleted before...[5] I think we can restore it now? -- Akira😼CA 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get consensus on the article's talk page, because you've ignored every point I've made, and failed to convince me of anything. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not going to waste times on this, I will restore "controlling the messaging by directing health officials..." only. -- Akira😼CA 12:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest the information be placed then, if not in the lede? Considering that its verifiable through links as well as a multitude of sources (https://www.thewrap.com/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-now-has-the-franchise-lowest-rotten-tomatoes-score-phantom-menace/, https://movieweb.com/star-wars-9-worst-reviewed etc), it is lede-worthy to me. Important information about the film's critical reception that gives added weight to the extent of the mixed reviews noted. It has immense notability. Davefelmer (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davefelmer: Nowhere actually, because the 'Audience response' section explains that the film was review-bombed. UpdateNerd (talk)