User talk:Escape Orbit

Escape Orbit

Please leave messages on my talk page.

I am human, so sometimes I make mistakes. If you have come here to complain about something I have done, please do not take it personally. Explain where you think I've gone wrong and I will happily explain what I was thinking when I did it. With your help I can rectify any errors I may have made. Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Hi, you have asked for my source - as I am editing the page using the approved text from the subject, what is the best way to reference this? Also, I realise I was a bit snappy in response to your message, so I'm sorry for that - was a stressful day. The original text is directly translated from German with grammatical errors, and needs to be updated. I'll neutralise the language and resubmit. Cheers.

I literally know him. They had another child a couple months ago. Can you please leave my edit alone. Cite your own damn proof that one of his children magically died. why is the burden of proof on me?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.177.143 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is literally how Wikipedia works. Besides that, anyone can claim to know him, and maybe he doesn't want his children's life on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You add a source that proves it otherwise... what kind of standard is this? it applied in one direction and not the other?

This is asinine. Why would I randomly try to add a child if i didn't know him or didn't care?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.177.143 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite logical. You want to add this, then you need to prove it. The burden is on you, not me. (You should read about Russell's teapot as an example.) Otherwise I could add a paragraph about him growing a second head, claim I'm his doctor, and demand you can't remove it until you source proof he hasn't, and I'm not. Does that sound like a workable policy?

You'd be surprised what people add to articles as jokes, mistakes or just mindless vandalism. I'm not saying you're wrong, or mistaken, or a vandal. But Stefano Bonfiglio would rightly complain if Wikipedia published incorrect information from random unknown people. That's why we have policies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to be so overbearingly pretentious and mind-numbingly pedantic? First you took it upon yourself to remove "what most fans consider to be Rotherhams' greatest league double" then you even disallow the single word "remarkable", leaving the remainder confusing and meaningless. If a lowly team like Rotherham scoring ten goals in two games against mighty Chelsea, including a six-nil thrashing, isn't a remarkable event then i'd like to know what is. This is not personal opinion - it is fact. Further, a survey of mature Millers fans would soon reveal that those games will never be forgotton. I've been a Rotherham supporter for almost all of my 57 years. My maternal Grandfather was Social club steward and catering manager at Millmoor from the early 1950's until his death - at Millmoor, behind the away-end goal as he walked from the players tunnel to the social club in the opposite corner - of a stroke In 1978. I know my club and I know it's fans. I suggest you scour the archives of newspaper "The Rotherham Advertiser" and discover for yourself what fans and professionals alike thought of Rotherhams' demolition and humiliation of Chelsea that season. Don't be petty. "Fantastic" or "Marvellous" would be personal opinion - I re-iterate that "remarkable" is more a fact. Kindly replace it otherwise my mentioning this "remarkable" event is pointless.(Steve Hoyland)2A02:C7D:12B8:5500:880E:4EFA:E34F:34C1 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not being opinion. Ensuring that articles follow policies and guidelines that are there for good reason.

"I suggest you scour the archives of newspaper "The Rotherham Advertiser" - Why don't you?

"I know my club and I know it's fans." - Anyone can claim to know, or be, anything anything on the internet. Wikipedia can't take anonymous people's word for things, it needs sources.

"This is not personal opinion - it is fact." Personal or not, it's an opinion. Wikipedia does not express opinions. If it is someone notable's opinion then please cite and attribute it.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello Escape Orbit, I sincerely think that in this story you are wrong. I'm just asking you to look at what you erase and what you replace it with. The card you put was not on the page 3 days ago.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit: Sorry, that was a bit harsh, I've retracted it. There was another editor going around changing the infobox. I thought you were that editor. Joseph Lister didn't hold any of the prizes and award and honour that highly at all. He never valued them, like other men of his age, perhaps did. There was only one which he considered worth getting and that was some old German society and there is plenty of evidence that shows that. He considered himself, above all else, a medical man and a scientist. That is all the evidence say, so I don't think it worth changing to officeholder. If it needs an office holder, then I think it worth putting a module in. It was a bit crass posting that. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I was going to create a page about a Russian imageboard named 2ch. This name is also an abbreviation of Japanese 2channel, now known as 5channel or 5ch. You reverted my edits in the redirect page 2ch, and I want to know how should I create the page in such case? If you don't think this name is suitable I'd like to ask you to create a page with proper name so I can fill it with content. Hmm1HmmHmm (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i’m not quite sure why you keep changing my valid updates on this page. do you live under a rock? google Family Video and you will see my “source” i literally talk to Alex who runs all the social media for the business at Family Video i’ve been a Family Video influencer and insider for years now. i know my sources. please stop changing it. i can ask Alex to try and make it so it won’t be allowed to be changed again if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.210.122 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep reverting them because you don't source them. Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet, that's not how Wikipedia works. And "Alex" doesn't own the article. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source, which states that the company is online only now. So not defunct, despite what your "influencer and insider" information claims. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that revert on Marie Van Brittan Brown, but the article was a mess from earlier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello the reason I changed the image is because the previous image was taken from my website on Edith Granger. On my website, it has always stated below the image of Edith Granger that I had permission from Smith College Archives to use the image and any further use of the image requires their permission. The person who uploaded the image did not actually have permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audramelissa (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Audramelissa's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have removed "prolific" as peacocking, despite the fact it's been in the lead for over two years, shouldn't "critically acclaimed" also be removed to be consistent, as "acclaimed" is one of the words highlighted in [[1]] and "prolific" isn't? Rodericksilly (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't just 'prolific', it was 'one of the most prolific of his generation'. I wonder why it's been allowed to stand in the lead for so long, as it is clearly peacocking, i.e. talking up the subject without conveying any meaningful information. What counts as 'one of the most prolific'? The top 10? Top 3? Exactly against who are we comparing? What is "his generation"? Where is this all sourced from?

You may have a point about "critically acclaimed", but there is less an issue about it because it's far more factual. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to where it says residence as it said Kilmarnock, Scotland as she now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe you took the residence column away completely. So i am I wondering why you decided to make this change.

There is no source that verifies her residence. Either in Kilmarnock or Las Vegas. Wikipedia shouldn't contain information that hasn't already been published in a reliable source, particularly when it's personal info she may not want made public. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you previously blocked User:78.33.40.254 two weeks ago, I thought I'd let you know that their vandalism has continued, for which they've continued receiving warnings. I think a longer block is in order. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your Carl Benz edit. Nothing wrong with strived, either. It's just a matter of personal preference. I thought strived sounded more elegant in that setting, is all. The matter is trivial.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realise you reverted my edit because it's unsourced and that's fair enough. However my questions really is about the subjectivity of collective nouns and how they are invented at some point and who has the authority over them? I expect no-one. For example someone had to decide a group of giraffes was a 'tower' probably because they are tall. I just think that a group of meerkats being a periscope is accurate and it should be adopted. However, live science says its a mob, gang or clan and while that fits, clearly that was just whatever was used at the time. https://www.livescience.com/27406-meerkats.html#:~:text=Several%20meerkat%20families%20may%20live,dominant%20female%20leads%20the%20group. If I got live science to add periscope to their article and that was the source, would you also revert that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.187 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on you persuading Live Science that you are an authority on naming Meercats, doesn't it? Convince them of that and you might get somewhere. Otherwise, you're right, a lot of animal collective nouns are nonsense, made-up, whimsy. But we have to go with what the sources say. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These changes are not vandalism. I am putting correct songs on the applied artists.

No you are not. You are adding yourself as producer of a remix you made in your bedroom. Please take your self-promotion somewhere else. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. That was not needed 2. I am not CTI 3. Reported.

Of course you're not.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my message in the edit was a bit terse. I wanted to explain a bit further. There was an effort about a year ago to redraft this article with the help of a mediator. It was largely successful and resulted in the current (more or less) text of the page. The Came quote was discussed at length and the group decided to leave it in for two primary reasons. The Telegraph source thought him worthy to quote and, at the time, he was a distinguished (their term) professor of religion at the university which was supposed to host the Craig/Dawkins debate.

Again, sorry for the terse revert, hope this helps clarify. Squatch347 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not the solution, whereby predestination and "the arrow of time" are being considered synonymous. Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it's the solution. You are adding original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in unbrainwashing you in relation to the information warfare occurring on Wikipedia. Maybe that is what has to happen.

What makes you think that Wiki page is an authority? Have you experienced pain and suffering for refusing to accept its authority? Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

OK, so you are harassing me, which is against the ToS... Right? Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you went offline. Take a look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#No_primary_sources%3F Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so there is a bunch of infowar where users are behaving as malicious robots and vandalizing Wikipedia. I do not know if I can resolve this through Wikipedia channels of communication today. The No original research talk page I made was deleted, and admins appear brainwashed, too. My first thought was to just hypercube (https://dennisfrancisblewett.blogspot.com/2021/04/technique-in-discussion-hypercubing.html?m=1) these dudes out and ignore this Wiki issue. So, I might be walking away personally from this. Maybe spacetime will gave me come back.

I do not have to accept your views if how Wikipedia should be managed. There is obviously a Wikipedia user base issue here.

of how* Dennis Francis Blewett (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever that means. Editor wanted policy on WP:OR changed so they could add more of the above to articles. Blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fast fashion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. 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) 05:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the footnotes and reinstated the Private Life section. I don't understand why you deleted it, as such sections are usual in Wikipedia Biographies.

Best,

Michael

Reply on User_talk:Michael291. Unsourced and/or incorrectly sourced personal info. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because that artist was credited in the drop box I added them to pages. Added by mistake into awards.

You are reverting my edit claiming that I'm replacing "sourced material". Have you checked the "sources"? An article from Univision that doesn't provide any kind of historical guarantee i.e. The recent claim from some hondurans that pupusas are from there are nothing but a big trolling from them, and now, you are participating actively on that trolling. What is your concept of "sourced material"?

Have you read the article? There is an entire section on the dispute over its origins. The lead is supposed to reflect the contents of the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of getting me banned from posting for pointing out a massive error how about you put the crack pipe down and find the correct information.

Chur, yaboi Rewbs.

Subway (restaurant) operates on a franchise basis. Those working in the restaurants are not employees of the company.

As for "getting you banned", I've no idea what you're talking about. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you removed my current #1 edit while the current #1 sentence in the main article of the Billboard Hot 100 chart remains. Marioedit8 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If something similar is in another article, that should probably be removed too, IMO. Wikipedia shouldn't lead articles with fleeting information that changes every week, is unlikely to by updated every week, and isn't in itself particularly notable to the article subject. Is there something notable about this week's #1 in relation to the chart. Or is it just a number one this week, like any other week? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit with the comment "Not Fair Use of copyright image". Please note that I did not upload the image, which has been in Wikipedia for many years with a fair use notice here. Its use on the page Paul is dead should be acceptable under the same justification, wouldn't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehushtan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that it has been uploaded, but how it is being used once it has been uploaded. "Fair Use" means the image can be used for discussion about the album itself. It can't be used for other things. That means it's fine on the article about the album, but use in other places is questionable.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But my entry in Paul is dead is part of the discussion of the album itself. The very title of the album is Mr. McCartney's own reference to the hoax/rumor/conspiracy theory discussed on that page. The page includes the image from Abbey Road, with notes related to the "Paul is dead" issue. Why not the image for "Paul is Live"? Nehushtan (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. But I'd say that neither should be used, since the article is not about either album, but rather about how some people interpreted what appeared on the album cover. It might be worth seeking other views on the article talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If please that "Makes no sense", then should the information be allowed to remain on Wiktionary as it has for done considerable time ? Heath St John (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary doesn't say 'lang' is from the Middle English 'syne', that makes no sense. It says 'lang' and 'syne' are from Middle English. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can't conceive how I came to type what I put on the page, when your reply is what I intended, instead. It can only have been the influence of all the tumbling different thoughts due to recent, continuing, unpleasant events in my life. Thanks very much. I'll type what I intended to, now. Heath St John (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Harinath Krishnamurthy from editing Wikipedia , because , he moved my user page தனீஷ் to some unwanted obscene name User:Mother Fucker , you can know by visit and check edit history of my user page , please do block the user. Thank you. தனீஷ் (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sources that did not meet the standards of reliability required by WP:BLP. They were simply not reliable sources. Either find better sources, or review the content. We cannot have biographical information based solely on some wanker running a YouTube channel under a pseudonym, or a mention in some lightweight funny paper. If the information is indeed notable, then it will have been published by a sufficiently reliable source. You are at liberty to seek further input at WP:RSN if you think that any of the sources I removed were appropriate, and I will abide by consensus there. But geez, if you think Crikey.com is good enough for BLP, then you really need to look at wikipolicy and chew over what it says. I will regard any attempt to restore these sources without consensus as vandalism. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have added a source to the interview with the personality that we have conducted exclusively and thus the source contributes to the overall bio page of the personality. You can consider then all interviews and links to them promotional.

Weird that you have removed the links to the unique interview with the prsonality.

Hi, @Portemao:. Do you run, or are employed by, the website cited? All your edits involve adding references to the same affiliated websites, and sometimes don't have anything specifically to do with the content they are citing, other than it being an interview with the article subject. Please read WP:CITESPAM. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you removed the section from Lynn Anderson's page stating that "Rose Garden" is one of the biggest recordings in country music history by a woman (true statement). Billboard has an article about Anderson having bragging rights for 27 years for having the biggest selling recording in country music. You removed under the guise of "Peacocking." The first few opening statements on the page of TAMMY WYNETTE say essentially the same thing about Wynette's "Stand by your Man." "Stand by Your Man" - while Wynette's signature song - was not nearly as big a hit as Anderson's "Rose Garden" (look at the chart activity in the discography section of each artist. If the "Peacocking" rule applies to Lynn Anderson, it should certainly apply to Tammy Wynette.

Lastly, when writing numbers, proper grammar etiquette = 10 and below can be written out. Anything above ten is written in numerical form. e.g. "She had 18 Top-10 hits." NOT: She had eighteen top-ten hits. Just a friendly FYI.

If it's a true statement, then please cite it. There's nothing provided anywhere in the article to support this statement. It's also peacocking because it's talking up the subject without providing any meaningful information. What does "one of the biggest" mean? The biggest? Second biggest? 100th biggest?

If there's an issue with Wynette's article, please fix it.

I didn't write or remove anything about her eighteen hits, so I've no idea why you're telling me this.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I can provide multiple citations substantiating my claim, that wasn't as much my issue as - why is it ok to remain on one artists' page without being challenged, but not another (e.g. Tammy Wynette) that's not sourced. Please check it out if your mission is to be consistent with rules.

Sorry about that, the script as used uses licencee. Red Jay (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey.. iwas looking through the edit history of micheal jackson and i saw that you posted about his death 1 day before it happened. can you explain that please

You are mistaken. This edit was on the 26th, the day after. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Escape. I think you should check sources on the Whitney Houston’s page before remove something. These are reliable sources not biased unlike Mariah Carey page. Most of the sources were taken from CNN, ABC, Rolling Stone and Sony. Thank you so much. Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-edited the Whitney Houston’s page. I read your reviews about my sources. I think some of the chosen words were biased so I changed them. However, you shouldn’t remove all of reliable sources like the CNN, ABC , Rolling Stone and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Could you re-read the page again? If you see a problem please reply to me before editing. Thanks Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And about the title “The Voice”, i acknowledged that some people also named The Voice but Whitney Houston is the most famous figure to be named as “The Voice”. Just like the “Queen of Pop”, many people said Whitney, Mariah, Celine, Janet,... were pop queens but the one and only queen of pop is Mrs Madonna. Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the talk page. You haven't given any source that demonstrated she is commonly known as "The Voice", it doesn't belong in the lead and much of the rest of your additions are not neutral.

The sources are not the chief problem, it's that the content does not neutrally reflect what they say and they are being used inappropriately in the lead. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Escape, I just made my explanation on Whitney Houston’s talk page. Could you check my message? Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just one article translation! --Adriana wiltzman (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created an article that extensively cites an autobiography written on IMDB, which is not a reliable source. None of the other sources even mention his name. So it does not look like he is notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm a volunteer archivist helping out at the Dave King Estate (and totally new to wikipedia!) I didn't personally know Dave, I'm not being paid, and I'm attempting to write a neutral and well sourced page for him.

Best!

Thanks very much for your help improving the page and streamlining my edits to adhere to Wikipedia style! Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is his official FB account not a source i can cite??? PumpingRudi (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It 's getting complicated: Is https:// en . mediamass . net/people/pee-wee-ellis/deathhoax.html a reasonable source? PumpingRudi (talk)

Thank you for helping to remove the POV puffery in the Shelby Kutty article. If you wouldn't mind helping to keep an eye on it, I have a sock report filed but a new SPA arrives every day to push more POV statements into the article with either no references or ones that don't actually say what is claimed. It is getting difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Hipal (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what moved you to template for me a 7 years old policy as a 'courtesy'? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question on the content of the notice? --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any reason to think I would have from you? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Escape Orbit, I'm writing on behalf of Borg & Beck, the brand owned by First Line Ltd, of which i am an employee and have been tasked to correct the Borg & Beck on Wikipedia which currently redirects to BorgWarner, who do not own the brand.

Please advise what you need from us as the information i have tried to publish and reference our Borg & Beck (www.borgandbeck.com) website is correct and already in the public domain. If we need to licence Wikipedia we are happy to do so, please advise us on how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borg & Beck (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proofing and editing the Becker page. I can't believe that you get so much hate on here. I feel like it's a pretty obvious necessity to keep at least some degree of continuity of tone, style, and reliability across the platform. Those of us who simply can provide subject-matter expertise and are familiar with the references in certain areas are not always suited for the copyediting half of this project (myself), then there are others who get the hang of it and maybe even manage to master that unfamiliar half of the work. It's pretty fascinating to see the collaboration happen so smoothly, and yet people still find a way to make an argument out of it. Well! I pretty much just wanted to say thanks and leave something for the dipsticks who seem to think their desire to turn the platform into a megaphone trumps the desire of its denizens to keep it reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxnir (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your advice ! will follow it FestusBashara (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of edit warring are one-sided and unjustified. Please read the edit history because it will show that Amaury removed credibly sourced information repeatedly--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. What you are citing does not support what you are adding to the article. It is your responsibility to provide a good source that supports your edit. Not just keep putting it back in. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the assistance here. I am confident that the user in question is abusing multiple accounts/IPs based on the IPs that showed up out of the blue to try to stonewall the user in question's changes. I don't know if the IP adding the categories is part of them, but regardless. What do you think the best course of action here is? Reporting the IPs or requesting semi-protection? Amaury • 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues you might request semi-protection. The best course of action is to try to politely explain what is wrong with what they are doing. Remember, assume good faith. Unless it's obvious vandalism, most people are trying to improve the article, but need help in understanding what is, and isn't, acceptable. Getting annoyed with them doesn't help. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They just outed themselves with the last IP I reverted here, as one of our WP:LTA sockers that we've been dealing with since 2016! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen‎. Amaury • 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to thank you for helping me to edit the article. Escape Orbit, I would like to ask for your help to see if my most recent edits minutes ago should be reverted or amended? --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to hear out why the first edits I made were being edited out? Could you give me a precise explanation about this, thank you.--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on this on the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Perhaps was an original thought. Still, how is it different than the existing sentence that princess Diana hadn't had difficulty receiving help for mental health. Seems to be more relevant and noteworthy that the actual subjects of the Oprah interview knew how. I was thinking of deleting the Diana example and putting in the Fab Four example precisely because of closer relevance to the Oprah interview (Diana wasn't in even in the Oprah interview but Harry and Meghan were). And I was being cautious by adding a replacement example before deleting the bad one. Thoughts?Createangelos (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that reliable sources have drawn a connection between the two events with Diana, and discussed it. If you don't have a source that mentions Oprah, and the 'Every Mind Matters' interview, discussing them together, then you are performing original synthesis by including it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha

I don't know if you're still monitoring this, but it is upsetting me that something is missing from the public's comprehension of the issue of Meghan and Harry. That is, people here in England didn't need to write to remind ourselevs that she'd just been on TV explaining the ways to get help for mental health. So it was just such a shock for her to be on TV in the USA saying the opposite, that she thought she had to go to HR, that no-one helped her, she was lost and had no information where to go for mental health help. A similar situation is with all the things she's done, so people here in the UK say "what on earth, that makes no sense," while people in the USA say "Oh the English people were so negligent towards you." If you remember about that montage, in Oprahs program, it showed Globe, Examiner, Enquirer, Weekly World News and said "Look at the horrible racist ENGLISH tabloids." Having the Archbishop needing to explain he didn't commit a criminal offence, having the Master of the Rolls needing to clarify whether she briefed Omid Scobie, and there, having Chuck Shumer needing to read how she doesn't remember the price of salad bar at Sizzler. It is an irreverence for truth which is not victimless, and intentional perhaps with collaboration of PR agencies. When there actually are important issues of internatinoal trust, environmental issues, which get ignored and trivialized in the process of this celebrity PR strategy. Createangelos (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have put a lot of thought about the tabloid reaction here, how they said that her explaining on TV how to get mental health support 'called into question' Harry's claim that she thought you have to go to HR, and that the tabloids themselves referenced BBC noting that the NHS and public_health_britain websites had crashed on launch Monday due to the popularity of the intervention. I think even though it is only the tabloid reaction it is really notable, for the weird reason that it has some legitimacy of context/truth to it. However I am worried about retaliation by PR agencies, perhaps irrationally, so can you watch over this for me for a while? It is 'current' and has not been reverted. I am mainly wanting to protect Wikipedia and as part of that, my incompetent edits if at times they are neutral and not incompetent. Createangelos (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem remains that the reaction you are citing here is to a different interview, not Oprah's. So the connection to, and relevance to the article, is your own synthesis. The article is not "Harry & Meghan's disputes with the royal family". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I didn't even notice that it was about Harry's subsequent 'me you can't see' talk. Createangelos (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm going to abandon this quest of mine to highlight how surprising it was for her to claim not to have known how to find support when she had been teaching us how to do it. Maybe the USA claim that she thought she had to go to HR was intended to make people like me publicize her earlier (successful) efforts in the UK. I hate how media is so superficial, but also I wouldn't like to be an unintentional puppet of a PR strategy that has me defending her abilities against her own claims of ineptitude, as in 'Oh doesn't anyone realize how wonderfully effective the interventions she described had been for US?' Truthfully, I'm just confused about how and why someone can be so disrespectful of accuracy when speaking publicly, and I am wanting to diminish superficial media reaction.Createangelos (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I’m not seeing the discussion you mentioned in your revert edit summary on the talk page or archive. Rusted AutoParts 16:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out a discussion at Talk:27 Club#Potentially controversial proposal: remove the "Identified members" list that references some statements you made 10 years ago on the subject. — Goffman82 10:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Escape Orbit,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Xx236, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Banna nicole, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Xx236}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my article. I merely moved it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. They were indeed helpful, but if you had checked the history you would have noted that the huge expansion is a work in progress in real time with clean ups as it evolves. You could have dropped me a line - articles also have talk pages ;) Sometimes such a long editing session which both expands, corrects a lot of errors and PoV, and researches and improves sources, has to be saved and an overall look taken before continuing. You might wish to sound a little less critical in your edit summaries. I'm also an old dog at Wikipedia but such harsh comment might discourage a newbie. Cheers, and all the best for 2022! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. They were indeed helpful, but if you had checked the history you would have noted that the huge expansion is a work in progress in real time with clean ups as it evolves. You could have dropped me a line - articles also have talk pages ;) Sometimes such a long editing session which both expands, corrects a lot of errors and PoV, and researches and improves sources, has to be saved and an overall look taken before continuing. You might wish to sound a little less critical in your edit summaries. I'm also an old dog at Wikipedia but such harsh comment might discourage a newbie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farasat anees jam (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are uploading and using photographs that do not belong to you, saying you own the copyright. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and good day,

You seem to have removed my info about William Hale, this is very upsetting and touching my heart strings as they were a very famous hunter in my town that founded the relationships as we know them today in Northern India. My small town deserves this recognition and you are abusing your power on the wikipedia realms. Please resort this back to how it was before.

Thanks very much,

LordBronSugar — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBronSugar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite a source that mentions this person? I don't seem to find anything anywhere about him, which seems odd for someone described as famous. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks for your comments. I have made another set of revisions, keeping in mind what you wrote. I also added five references as well. I also improved the wording and the clarity, and I fixed some typographical errors.

Which source was "unreliable" for the voice "Controversy" in Peter Dinklage's article so I can do better? 151.36.124.121 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is perhaps Daily Mail, is that? Because I saw the list of deprecated sources on English Wikipedia, and I think is that, am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.35.86 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've read your concern in the Peter Dinklage's talk page and I wrote you a response about the section "Controversy" I want to put in the Peter Dinklage article. I'm still waiting for a response, to know which sources are reliable and which ones must be omitted, so I can make it acceptable and leave it alone without occurring in edit wars and potential blocks. I think the last modified version was perfect in its content, but I want you to tell me which sources are not. Thank you. 151.18.76.171 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page. The main problem is not the sources (although there are problems with them), but in the added editorializing, original research and unattributed opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entries identify people as Scottish if they were born to Scottish parents in Scotland, and likewise with a Welsh person, but some people are listed a "British" when they were born to English parents in England. Escape Orbit takes exception to me amending such entries.

If a person is English, surely it's no more legitimate to label them "British" than it is to do so with the Scottish and Welsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwrightenglish (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read guidelines on UK nationalities. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Steve Bronski's page on Wikipedia as I was a personal friend of his and I knew him very well. He WAS born in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, England and moved to Castlmilk, Glasgow when he was 6 months old. I should know I was at his funeral!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runfromlove85 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Runfromlove85:, this might be true. I've modified the article because the sources don't actually say he was born in Glasgow. But we don't have anything to say where he was born, and the word of an anonymous person on the internet is not enough. Can you find a reliable source that says where he was born? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look at the file size, you would have realised that the images don't come from the sources you indicated. They don't qualify for speedy I don't think and may need proper discussions. I suspect they indeed come from the company itself, but perhaps need OTRS. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the deletions were quick. Can I ask that you check the files properly before you start speedy deletion requests? The files are big, some with metadata, suggesting that those were original image files and likely uploaded by the copyright holder, and not something pulled off some random websites. Hzh (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where they came from isn't really the point, if one single person is claiming to be multiple different copyright holders, and providing no evidence that they own copyright. The sources I listed really functioned as proof that the images were owned, and copyrighted, by professional photographers. The company itself, if the editor involved is a representative of them, doesn't necessarily have any right to them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they have the original files (when the images have metadata and file size of greater than a few megabytes, then they are likely the original), they likely have the rights to the image, they simply credited the original photographers. It is more than likely they supplied the sources you gave with the images. Ask for OTRS in such cases. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I indicated clearly say that they are copyrighted by different individuals. In some cases the meta data on the image said the same. Owning a copy of the original does not mean they own the copyright on the images and are can grant licence to them under CC. One anonymous person can't claim that they are multiple people and own all these copyrights to different photographs taken by different people wihout it appearing dubious.

I'm sure they did not mean to hide this fact, they did credit the photographer. But it looks like they didn't appreciate what they were doing by claiming to own them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the fact that they likely supplied the files to the sources you indicated (I saw the same images in one source), since they are the same images but only smaller in size in the sources you gave. They can't supply them if they don't own the rights the images. The uploader appears to be from the Heatherwick publicity office, and they probably commissioned or obtained directly the images from the photographers. Like I said, ask for OTRS (alerting them to the rules since many are ignorant of those), if they can't then they likely don't own them. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "They can't supply them if they don't own the rights the images." - Yes they can. They could have been given permission by the copyright holder. That still does not mean own any rights themselves and can grant rights to others through CC.
• they probably commissioned or obtained directly the images from the photographers." - But clearly do not own the copyright.
• They specifically claimed when uploading that the photographs were their own work. That was not true. It's a complicated area, and I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I'm comfortable that if an image is uploaded with clearly a false declaration, it should be removed. Whoever deleted them seems to have agreed. If they editor does have any kind of rights or permission, they can start by revealing their possible COI and/or paid editing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop leaving false information relating to supertramp. They are a British band (two member parents were Scottish).

You will be reported if you keep making simply incorrect edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5181:A701:B51D:9238:38A1:F6B7 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies of the individual members say differently. One member, who joined after they were formed, was Scottish, the rest were English and the band was formed in England. I don't know if that makes them British, but I suggest you put your case on the talk page, instead of edit warring over multiple articles as you have been doing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Map of Europe and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Map of Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 72.83.57.117 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really appreciate you for your humane comments about my edits style. I promise you that the corrections are taken. Thank.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge) Hi Escape Orbit, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Kohinoor Group you tried to improve was a COI recreation of the article previously deleted following discussion. I have WP:G4 deleted the article and reinstated the redirect to Saigol Group. Cabayi (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Why did you undo my edit on the Open Championship page? It had 4 citations. Olso1912 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you're saying I'm adding original research. The linked description of what that entails clearly is not speaking about my edit. Furthermore, your reversion results in a less accurate page. What I was saying was not untrue in any way.

Olso1912 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Olso1912. I'm afraid it is Original Synthesis, in that it involves you researching, and citing, a few newspapers with content that, when combined, presents an argument that none of the cited sources say. You added "British newspapers have continued to occasionally use British Open", when all each source shows is that one journalist once wrote this. None of them say anything about British newspapers in general, or how they refer to The Open, and it is only once you combine the sources is your claim verified. Wikipeida considers that Original Synthesis and it is not permitted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I understand the need for the research/synthesis policy above. I do not believe this particular instance is the intent of the rule. The problem is, that the name section on The Open page is horribly biased to the idea that no one in Britain ever called it the "British Open". Which is clearly not true. The only citation to support this is from the R&A, even though there is literally video evidence of the term "British Open" being used while presenting the Claret Jug.

There must be a way to make this section more factual. Olso1912 (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/nick-faldo-has-a-funny-idea-to-end-this-whole-open-championship-or-british-open-debate

Does this pass muster, here is a discussion of a TV commentator who is clearly British and a past champion using the term, in an article specifically about the name. Also below are more examples of the term "British Open" being used. I know the below links are not specifically about what the name of the event is, however, it seems pretty obvious that they are covering they are calling it "British Open".

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf/the-british-open-20-years-of-champions-2026395.html

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/gallery/pictures-looking-back-british-open-7408206

https://www.scotsman.com/news/obituary-peter-thomson-australian-golfer-who-won-british-open-five-times-1428415 Olso1912 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Escape Orbit, hope you are well. Please look through this IP address: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:800:C100:1120:2879:CC96:42C1:3738 They seem to be vandalizing Wikipedia by deliberately introducing false information. I caught them introducing a wrong birthdate to Carrie Underwood's page. Cheers MarkieC07 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the things I added about Barry Keoghan's child has been removed, why do I still see the sentence talking about the announcement of the birth of Keoghan's child without a source to back it up as it has been there before I added more info about Barry Keoghan? Commander Tam Kenoby (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that source does indeed verify that he had a child. It does not tell you how many children he has. But I had missed that you had also cited the announcement lower down. I've fixed that. Thanks, @Commander Tam Kenoby:. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ckunbwere liquidated in 2012. Fact.

Please stop reverting edits to those put in place by their fans who seek to deny it. This is vandalism of the truth.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deevlash (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources consider it to be the same club. Fact. Your interpretation on the matter is not notable and has been discussed and discounted repeatedly . Stop edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy reminder: Rangers F.C. is subject to discretionary sanctions and is under a 1RR restriction. Deevlash has also been advised of this and would be sanctioned on a go-forward basis. —C.Fred (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem you're doing the exact same thing. Stop changing facts please, its irresponsible.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deevlash (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See reply above. Continuing to edit war on the basis you're right, everyone else is wrong, won't get you far. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was starting a section on this page for the streetwear culture in the UK and to help people trying to start getting into it in the UK. Why did you remove it is there a standard needed or something just trying to add more info on the topic? :( 2A00:23C6:B101:7D01:19A5:64E9:4FED:FC13 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need some reliable sources discussing the topic and to reflect what they say. Linking to providers of streetwear, and offering an opinion of how amazing/successful/popular they are isn't encyclopaedic. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do these sources need to be from within Wikipedia itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B101:7D01:19A5:64E9:4FED:FC13 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should not be from Wikipedia, but from a reliable source. That means a third party that people can trust to be accurate and objective. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note "In the street scenes, one shop is titled "Micklewhite's Candie Shoppe", Micklewhite being Michael Caine's birth surname." You reverted this with the comment "Cite please", which are grounds I do not understand. This is fact, not my opinion or original research - the film itself is the citation, which can be verified by viewing it, unless you're saying a specific frame number or timing is required? Or are you challenging Michael Caine's birth name, which is cited in his biographical article? Masato.harada (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of what is on the film, and the connection it has to Caine, through its relationship with his birth surname, is Original Synthesis, unless you can find a source that makes this connection already? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi orbit, I would like to change and edit some wrong information in the Fatim-Zahra Ammor english version. Can you please assist me? thank you dear Henoudsamya (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed your complaint about citation on the talk page. Pali citation is notoriously difficult. So much disagreement. But one thing everyone agrees on, is the old system of using Pali Text Society page numbers, particularly Bhikkhu Bodhi, the worlds foremost translator. He incorporates those numbers in all his major translations. Computers work best with Pali Text Society page numbers, too. Including the Vipassana Research Institute. Any other system is complicated because Thailand, Sri Lanka canons divide things up differently. It's a headache. So, having fixed the thing as best as I know how, I request permission to remove the template message. Sukusala (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is absconding from India after cheating crores of rupees from investors.it is there in news including suntv.please check YouTube..it's must to get included so that more people will not get suffered. Renganathan krishnappan (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source and this does not go into Wikipedia without a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Escape Orbit: I have linked the notes not only to the appropriate Wiki page, but also to the SuttaCentral reference page. Therefore, the Template Message is now unjustified: "This article has an unclear citation style. The reason given is: cites used are non-standard and unclear." Could it please be now removed. As I have explained, the Pali Text Society page nummbers are used, by the very best publishers, including Sutta Central, Margaret Cone, and Bhikkhu Bodhi. To say this is non-standard is simply wrong. Sukusala (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that you removed my edit, citing ‘well known by who’ and ‘to which day’, I think you made an error- My thoughts were that the former of your statement is answered by the BBC source attached to it, and the latter is not in literal sense of date (but rather in terms of its well known nature, the attached source to it, explains it very well. What I added in was very well sourced, and very much informative- so maybe, if you think these words don’t follow on, we should change the wording to it, then? Brucewane01 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was restore a page that was an accepted page by Wikipedia before ARMcgrath completely removed all text for Kurt James in 2018 with his edit of the already accepted page. (ARMcgrath EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS 7,159 )This user has a high vandalism rating, yet has the ability to go into existing accounts and delete from them at will. I looked at some of this user’s edit history and I see that the user goes into high profile musician’s pages and just deletes whatever they want. This user’s profile needs to be looked at for vandalism of existing accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincygal (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page was an entirely unsourced biography of a living person. It didn't show notability and nothing it said was supported by reliable sources. This simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and the fact that it had escaped attention for some while doesn't change this. This doesn't suggest that he is a "high profile musician". If you can find sources to support what the article said, then please do readd the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw you reversed my edits regarding Kristo's arrest. I didn't missummarise the source, I cleaned up the wording (e.g. active voice). If the summary was wrong, that wasn't my fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.114.117 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have reverted my edits to those said articles in which I added two categories on the Fleetwood Mac article and removing the Member of section on the infobox of the articles of the band’s members.

I think it’s true Fleetwood Mac have disbanded as Mick Fleetwood said at the Grammys that they wouldn’t perform again following the death of Christine McVie last November. Benfskye1 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fleetwood Mac article doesn't say this. It says "I'd say we're done, but then we've all said that before". I'd wait until an actual official statement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend, Thank you for your edits. I'm a bit confused as to why you removed the two list. The 24 pointers were important as it was the Memorandum of reforms submitted.

The present official lists are present in all other Church in Malankara. Why was these reverted. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit of Mariah Carey being an author? She has written a biographical memoir based on her life, and two holiday themed children's book. I even added the cited source pointing to such said information. Not to mention it is also stated on her page under the written works category. IslandScholar (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:ROLEBIO, specifically; "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." I think that "author" is not what makes Carey notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed my contents adding was reverted by you based on copy and paste from this day which i stated as source before the information.

As a new wiki editor,is there a policy against copy and paste of tangible information? And what are wikipedia policy for editors? James Maye (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The message that I left on your talk page explains everything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Escape Orbit. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Latifa Nalukenge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3: sources suggest this is a valid alternative name. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just wondering why you removed my edit about the closure and fundraising effort?

Thanks. Ashford39 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I misread what the edit summary was showing me. I've reverted my edit. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. Ashford39 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't revert another user's edit for not citing a source. I've added a source but please remember this. WiiPlayer1 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. Particularly when the source you then provided does not say what you claim it does. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how my source doesn't say OceanGate ceased operations. WiiPlayer1 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"“OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations,” the message says." That does not say "ceased" is says "suspended". And neither make the company "defunct", which is the parameter you added to the company info box. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you are right in that the company is almost certainly finished. But Wikipedia can't be the one to declare it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanGate's website and multiple news agencies have confirmed it's defunct. WiiPlayer1 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm literally quoting their website. "OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations". That does not say the company is defunct. What multiple news agencies says it is? If you have one that says the company is no more then perhaps it can be added. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was having so much trouble figuring out getting the disclosure to work. Thank you for helping! Publiccorrections234 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, me again. I somehow forgot about the Skaka edits so here I am back. I appreciate you trying to fix the article, but all the information that the person who edits it the most are over-promotional and not really relevant. The “Man of the year” award is not relevant and does little to represent his term as mayor. The only things relevant are probably the Trebević cable car and organizing EYOF 2019. The Islamic leader in Bosnia and Herzegovina giving his support to Skaka, as well as the Young Muslims organization are also not so relevant and are purely objectively just biased. Irregularities in the arrest process were not found, just the date of him being in prison until a proper court hearing expired. And the fact that the editor used Hayat, Istraga and Stav as sources is also just biased reporting. The shortest way I can explain you is that they are all extremely biased media (Stav especially), whose sources are almost never used due to this fact. And once again, the editor is a clear sockpuppet, so keeping their edits on the article doesn't even make any sense. If we are sticking to proper guidelines, objectivity and neutrality on Wikipedia, then Skaka's article is everything but that. I hope you understand. Bakir123 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was not really a good revert [2]. If you actually read the Act of Proscription and its embedded Dress Act, you find that the editor was entirely correct on this (their edit just needed formatting cleanup). The article has since been revised to have the correct information in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was malformed and contradicted what the article had said previously, and what the linked article said, without adding any new source to support what was now being claimed. So I'm happy to stand by the revert. The revert should have a comment on it though, that sometimes happens by mistake. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Danger Rangers article, I added all that information because I thought the article was lacking much plot and character information. Character information, I understand getting removed (such as my speculation that Sully has a crush on Kitty, because it's really only hinted at and not developed, in the episode "Mission 407: Safety Rules!", where it's just used as a joke, but what did I do wrong about the plot, aside from saying "you" or other nouns? Sorry if that's a bit confused. Triviatronic9000 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have undone your undo. Zalán Hári (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I think the issue was the word "known", which brings unspecified people into the situation who are doing the "knowing". It could also be taken as speculating that there are "unknown" structural isomers. Better to just say there is a structural isomer. I've modified it slightly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Zalán Hári (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]