Jump to content

User talk:ScrapIronIV/Archive3

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

Fuck You!

You, Arcoterion, Binksternet, and DrKay are slefish malicious people who never look at edits to realize they have sources. Fuck you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.95.134 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ahsoka Tano#Recent edits

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ahsoka Tano#Recent edits. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nauman Chaudhry

Sir i am facing problem with my page i have given all the references which are valid and legal, but there is a mark on my page from one week This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

just guide how to get rid of this mark? thankyou.

Carlos Carvalhal

Hi there again SI IV, from Portugal,

I tried and tried to dig something up from the Internet, this was all I could find for the moment. But don't worry, everything is backed up by the FORADEJOGO external link (for his career as a player, the first, not the second, his manager stuff), which is reliable.

Attentively, thanks for the "thanks" and happy editing --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What you have is fine, I appreciate the effort! Saúde! Scr★pIronIV 21:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing Edits

Hello ScrapironIV, I am responding to your comments on deleting my edits. I wanted to know what I could have done to make the edit less like an advertisement/what I could do to improve it. My class in school is doing a wikipedia project and we are documenting all the editing/interactions we have with editors as well. It isn't beneficial that I make a successful edit, but rather attempt and ask how to improve. This is a very neat experience for me since I've never really done it before.

Fisherd160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherd160 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

When you included information about the app, you also included information on where to purchase is and how to play it. The sources consisted of app store sources. What you need to provide is reliable, third party sources - unassociated with the game - that discuss the game. Otherwise, it looks like the section is just trying to direct people to go and get the app. I have placed a welcome message on your page with some useful links to help get you started editing here. Scr★pIronIV 12:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF request for User:ScrapIronIV to desist from repeating transphobia

You repeated a transphobic version of the Eddie Murphy page. [1] I asked You not to do it again and You did not respond. User_talk:ScrapIronIV/Archive2#Your_Eddie_Murphy.23Legal_issues_edits Instead You repeated the transphobia again. [2] You have advocated for using WP:AIV in such a situation; but I have not done that. Please do not repeat any more transphobia. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of transphobia are unwarranted. The sources provided did not support the terminology you inserted. The new sources do not meet WP:RS. Take your concerns to the article talk page, so there are more eyes on the issue. Scr★pIronIV 12:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read a little bit about transsexual people, the Samoan third gender fa'afafine, the Miss Island Queen Pageant, and the winner of 1993 - Shalimar (Atisone Seiuli) on the official pageant site http://assofias.webs.com/formertitleholders.htm . I hope You learn the following information:
  1. It is inaccurate and offensive to charge a trans woman who has undergone feminization surgery and hormone therapy with transvestism for wearing feminine clothes.
  2. It is inaccurate and offensive to charge a noted fa'afafine with transvestism for wearing feminine clothes.
  3. It is unencyclopædic to found reversions on unresearched misunderstandings.
  4. It is unencyclopædic to wholly remove sourced content that is published in book form, available online, and legally cleared of slander; without supplying an opposing source.
  5. It approaches vandalism to do all these deeds after repeated warnings.
I will await your response. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 08:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the english Wikipedia, not the Samoan Wikipedia. Provide valid sources for your additions, and they can stay. How either you or I "feel" about a topic is immaterial. if the source cited says "transvestite" then Wikipedia says "transvestite". It is an article about Eddie Murphy, and a barely notable event. The history and preferences of the parties associated with that event will be reported as reliable third party sources. Not original research, not fact-checking, and certainly not tailored to fit some agenda. If there is a problem with the words used in the sources, take it up with the sources.
Now, as I have requested previously, take this to the ARTICLE talk page so other editors can see the conversation, and weigh in. No further discussion on this topic will be entertained here. Scr★pIronIV 12:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I've still refrained from a 3rd reversion but a Request for Comment is now open per your request and the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 08:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about Haleyville, A:

Why do you remove the notable people, Andi and Kate form Homefree on Haleyville, Alabama page? Multiple people in the town have requested they be put on the page.

Is is against Wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.75.29 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

To be included as "notable residents" they need to be encyclopedically notable, not just popular. Please read WP:GNG. If you believe they pass this notability guideline, then the wikipedia article about them needs to be created first. Please read WP:WTAF for guidance. Scr★pIronIV 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) WP:LISTPEOPLE also applies to this issue. In practice, if a reliable secondary source (not related to the show or network itself) can be cited that shows the person is from this city, they could be included in the list, especially if they otherwise meet the GNG requirements and an article could be created, but just hasn't. Since this wasn't the case, SrapIron was correct in removing them from the list. Also note that each person needs to be listed separately. - BilCat (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nic Hard: Please Do Not Delete

Hi,

Please re-check Nic Hard. New information added. Discographies from AllMusic.com and Discogs.com . More to Follow

Any assistance in the creation of this page would be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.193.13 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about WQXR-FM revision

I'm still new at editing on Wikipedia. I'm sure you had very good reasons for erasing some of what I revised. But did it have to be everything? Didn't I make any good revisions at all? Was everything wrong? And if there's a fine line on something I revised, wouldn't it make sense to say, let's leave this so the person doesn't get too discouraged? It's like getting a zero on a test.

Also, how is it that you can find revisions and delete them so quickly? You erased my revisions only a few hours after I did it. And I see under "History" that someone made a revision and you deleted it within minutes. Again, I'm new. So is there like an alarm that goes off? Or do you check your favorite pages very frequently to see nobody has revised any page you feel is good the way it is?

Greetings, and welcome. I reverted two edits because you were providing links to terms which were already linked earlier in the article (see WP:OVERLINK), or substantively changing the meaning of a sentence without providing a source (see WP:RS). I looked at your actual edit, comparing it to the prior version, so it did not take much time to read the changes. That article is on my Watchlist, as I have edited it in the past. It shows up on my feed when it is changed, and I regularly scan changes to pages I am already familiar with. I am sorry that it was discouraging; I did look at some of your other contributions to other articles and in general they seem fine. You should probably find a source for your changes to WMVX - any unsourced and significant changes are likely to be challenged, and could be reverted. Happy editing! Scr★pIronIV 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about WQXR-FM revision (Part II)

And another question, if I may... How long does it take someone to get familiar with all these complicated words and phrases connected to Wikipedia? I see links and lingo and I have no idea what they mean or how they are generated. It's like a foreign language, or a special club where everyone knows the codes except newcomers. Should it be this complicated or am I just such a novice? I wonder if it is like the cool kids' table in the school cafeteria?

I guess it's like anything, you get used to it after a while. Anything you see that is bluelinked and begins with "WP:" is generally going to be a link to a policy, essay, or other standard which applies to the rules of editing. generally, anyone who makes a change should link to a policy, or give another reason within the edit summary. I will post a welcome message on your page which should help get you started.
I noticed that you are not using edit summaries much - currently, you are only using edit summaries in 38.2% of your edits. Edit summaries help other editors understand the change you made, and why you made it. I will always look closer at edits which have no explanation, and am more likely to revert them. And I am definitely not one of the "cool kids" at the table.
Finally, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your post. That way we know who sent us the message, without having to look at the page history. Scr★pIronIV 16:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A few more questions

OK, in your answer to me, I have now seven questions...

1) How did you answer within minutes of my posting the question? Did an alarm go off? 2) How would you know WP:overlink? I have no idea about that. 3) Same with WP:RS 4) How would you know how to get to my edit history or that I edited WMVX or where I may have gone wrong? I have no idea how to check anyone's edits. 5) How would someone generate a smiley face? 6) How would someone generate a logo for their name? 7) How would someone tell us when they posted a message in UTC?

OK, maybe I don't really want to know all those answers but this is daunting. Like I said, it's a foreign language where I can only pick up a few words here and there, and you and others know the third person plural of an irregular verb in future perfect tense.

1) When you are logged in, you should see an alert at the top of the page saying that you have messages whenever someone posts to your talk page. If you are not logged in, you should see it as soon as you log in.
2 & 3) There is a welcome message at the top of your talkpage, it includes some useful links to get started. Generally you learn of a policy or Manual of Style issue after you violate one - somebody will tell you about it.
4) In the page history, next to your username, there is a link labeled "contribs" - that will show all of a user's edits.
5) Type {{smiley}}
6) Under preferences, there is an edit box under the "Signature" section. You need to know some markup language to do that. For me, I took someone else's signature, played with it in my sandbox, and built a new one from what I learned. The markup for mine is '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' Feel free to play with it.
7) I have no idea.
I hope this helps! Scr★pIronIV 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert of Sky News Australia

Hi, I noticed you reverted this edit on the article Sky News Australia. I note the reason you gave was "RV sock of blocked user", however upon looking at what that user contributed, they added three titles in the programming section, and all three programs are current on the channel. The user didn't add a reference for any of them (which I fully understand is not allowed), and the user couldn't wikilink to any of the programs because they don't have their own article. I noticed that the user BilCatneverstopsblockingme has now been blocked indefinently, and I'm not sure what the backstory is to the user or its sister accounts are, but just in case the primary reason they've been blocked has something to do with the particular edit I mentioned earlier, I just thought I'd say, as a regular editor of the page, the edit was technically accurate and not vandalism (just unreferenced, I have considered adding the titles myself but haven't managed to find viable citations). If the user has a history of poor edits, vandalism elsewhere, etc I understand, but just wanted to say the user did add anything like vandalism in this particular case. Thanks for your time. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This was reverted per policy, as a sockpuppet of a longterm abuser. Their contributions are reverted on sight. If you feel that the information is warranted, you can take responsibility for the addition, and add it back in again. Scr★pIronIV 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I just wanted to make sure they weren't blocked based on this one particular edit. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edit at Paine College

You've removed several people who were included on the notable alumni page, individuals who were college presidents, the first African-American to achieve whatever it is they accomplished, etc. All of these individuals have numerous articles (outside of wikipedia) written about them. They should be included on this list. 39aka94 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)39aka94

Just a friendly note to let you know why I reverted your edit to Paine College. The essay you cited - which is only an essay, not policy - applies to attempts to add links to articles. The material you removed didn't include links. However, the material did include references and it appears to be germane to the topic of the article. If you object to the material's inclusion on other grounds - not important enough, not interesting enough, sources aren't reliable, etc. - then please let us know in Talk! ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Proof of notability required in addition to citation. To be defined in a list of "notable" individuals, they must meet Wikipedia's standards of notability; this is vetted through the article creation process. Scr★pIronIV 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely wrong in both your actions and interpretation of WP:N. The policy is crystal clear on this issue: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Please revert your edit. ElKevbo (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Once you define a list as one of "Notable" individuals, the list must be composed solely of notable entries. If it were an indiscriminate list, no problem. But the article has specified that there are notable alumni, and proof of that claim is determined through the existence of an article. Scr★pIronIV 17:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
What part of "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles" do you not understand? The limited, niche way that we apply the word in the internal management of this project doesn't require us to change the normal usage of the word in article content any more than our internal definition of "reliable" requires us to change the way we use that word in articles. In any case, the clear wording of the policy trumps your interpretation. Revert your edit. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:N is flawed. What you have quoted deals with how the contents of an article have no impact on the subject's notability. It has nothing to do with the contents of lists within an article. This list, as a subset, is defined as containing notable entries. Notability is vetted and maintained through article creation and maintenance. Without such a standard, anyone who ever attended a school deserves to have their name added to the list of alumni, so long as someone, somewhere, ever wrote that down and published it. I am certain that is not what you are advocating. Scr★pIronIV 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not at all what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that WP:N is clear when it says that it doesn't determine article content. Instead, WP:V does that. If you object to any of this material on those (or any other reasonable) grounds, please open a discussion in Talk or remove the content with an appropriate edit summary so we all know your objection. You're absolutely correct that being included in published material is insufficient for inclusion in an article. However, there exists a tremendous middle ground of content that is important enough to warrant inclusion in an article without rising to the level of warranting a separate, dedicated article.
In any case, I've opened a discussion at WT:N. I imagine that this is a discussion that's been had many times already so hopefully some of the regulars there can point us in the right direction. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. Scr★pIronIV 17:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ah, ha - found it! (I knew there was already something about this topic written somewhere...) In a nutshell, the policy is that the list should only have people that (a) meet the notability guidelines and (b) have a source supporting their relationship to the college. However, exceptions may be made if the person is famous for a specific event or otherwise necessary to keep the list complete and comprehensive i.e., a few non-notable people can be included to complete a list of almost-all-notable people who all meet a specified criteria.

I contend that most of the people you deleted meet the first criterion for an exception. In fact, many of them meet the notability guideline. WP:WTAF is only an essay so it's not sufficient to delete material that other editors contest especially when that material is well-sourced. I'll propose in Talk to restore the material that meets this bar.

I maintain, however, that your edit warring is inappropriate and unnecessarily elevated this disagreement. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation of edit-warring is unfounded, and will be ignored for the sake of peace on earth and goodwill toward men. I hope that you have seen what consensus is on this topic for future reference. Inclusion is the exception, not the rule, and I would recommend that you consider writing a few stubs if you wish to include these entries. Scr★pIronIV 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You made an edit. I reverted your edit. You reverted my revert. It's bold, revert, discuss; it's not bold, revert, revert, discuss. You began an edit war. Don't do that. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, you seem to take issue that my edits were part of an existing consensus, which has been explained to you by multiple editors who responded to your post at WT:N.
I would recommend that you not attempt to escalate the situation now by continuing unfounded accusations on my talk page. To that end, I will clearly state:
This discussion is over. Do not repost on my talk page on this topic.
Period. Full stop. Continuing to press will be viewed as intentional harassment, and will be reported as such. Scr★pIronIV 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

University of Chicago Neo-Nazi edit

I noticed you undid my previous edit noting prominent white nationalists affiliated with the University citing that it was improperly sourced, and I am wondering what sort of citations would be necessary or what the citational standards are for the site. All three are vocal and open white nationalists or neo-Nazis. MakeUofCGreatAgain (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ScrapIronIV. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz

Hi, can you take a look please at Shmuly Yanklowitz again? It seems valid edits but to me extreme undue and promotional, but not too sure. Thanks, Sir Joseph (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:Someone really, really likes the subject of the article. For me, I am taking an extended break from Wikipedia, and do not plan on editing for a while. The award is not notable; the publication has a readership of less than 5000, and being included in a list of reader submitted "inspirational rabbis" from such a small group is not worth mentioning. Scr★pIronIV 00:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks and enjoy your break. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about edits

Hi Wiki Editor,

I am working with Wake Forest University School of Business and wanted to see about contacting an editor to verify and make changes to the school's page.

I am working as PR counsel for WFUSB, and believe that violates the terms of service for us to edit the page directly. Instead, I'd like to present evidence that showcases outdated material on the Wiki page. Can I get you this information through the Wiki talk page? Thank you for your time and consideration. We're a bit new to this and want to make sure we aren't violating Wiki's TOS.

All the best,

Scott Scottdjc (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, ScrapIronIV. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 15:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Double Bind/Gregory Bateson

Hello,

Why have you blocked the additional information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InSearchOfLostPatterns (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Why have you blocked the additional information?

Hello,

Why have you blocked the additional information?

Some important products lines, do not have reviews as yet since they are new.

That will be and is true of many sporting goods products. They will be listed other places making Wikipedia look incomplete and foolish. Electro Optics and other products have ONLY primary and advertised references. What some people don't realize is that many of the supposedly authoritative references come from sources that are advertising supported. Trying to discriminate base don where the money comes from is illogical. There is NO source that is not copyrighted or free. Office.com advertises to the Law Enforcement industry, for example. That doesn't in any way mean they are not a credible source of that the products they mention should not be mentioned. A HUGE amount of Wikipedia data is sourced from commercial interests and a lot of it is copyrighted an copied wholesale.Digitallymade (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. The article in question is about the company, and does not need an exhaustive list of available products. Further discussion on article content needs to be directed to the Article Talk Page, and not here. Scr★pIronIV 15:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerning my edits on the Christ Myth Theory Page

Thank you, I should have realized that Bill Maher (as someone who is an academic) would not count in this situation AbdulAliAbdullah (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Why have you blocked the additional information?

Hi there, what do you mean by Additional information? AbdulAliAbdullah (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently that was a misplaced message. All is well with your contributions. Scr★pIronIV 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"affluent"

I am contacting you because you were one of the last voices on this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sherman_Oaks,_Los_Angeles#Affluence) Despite the discussion, this word is still being added to Los Angeles neighborhoods. In [West Hills, Los Angeles] it has been removed by different editors and added back in twice now by the same person. Any advice?Phatblackmama (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a big, fat, juicy nothingburger. Some sources use it, so it could be appropriate. Even so, it smacks of weasel words. There are more important things to argue about. Scr★pIronIV 14:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Scr★pIron. I know this seems minor to you, but I am trying to figure out how wikipedia works -- what course of action is appropriate? So you are saying that despite consensus that adjectives like "affluent" should be removed, it is okay for a user to ignore consensus and keep adding it back in? It has been removed from West Hills, Los Angeles multiple times by different people, and the same user keeps adding it back it. (It has now been removed for the third time, by three different people, and reinserted three times by the same user). Are you suggesting consensus should be ignored? Is this is how wikipedia is supposed to work -- Consensus is secondary to persistence? Phatblackmama (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I am completely unqualified to speak to that point. I am not entirely convinced that Wikipedia "works" at all. Some Wikipedia editors follow rules, look for consensus, and see this project as an encyclopedia. Others, not so much. Yes, persistence matters. People eventually give up, and go on to other, less contentious articles. I gave up editing entirely for months because I don't want to spend my life arguing. If I had my choice, then the word affluent would not be used in the article. I believe Wikipedia's policies support its exclusion. I also believe that there are plenty of less confrontational ways to contribute here, and believe the issue of that word is just not that important. Scr★pIronIV 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Mauser C96

You obviously haven't seen the film. I have. The C96 is used at one point, to shoot Lawrence in the arm. It's mentioned in the Internet firearms movie database, but it shouldn't have to be since millions of people have seen the film. I won't list another reference. Since you insist on being inaccurate and incomplete.Digitallymade (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is in the film, or whether I have seen it. What matters is whether anyone has written about it in a reliable source. IMDB is not a reliable source. I appreciate the contributions you are making here, but you need to look into what acceptable as a source for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a website full of random facts based on personal experience or opinions. Scr★pIronIV 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure someone has, since the C96 was a prominent part of the action when Lawrence is shot by it. But.. since you want to complain about it I'm not going to look further IMFDB is a good enough resource AFAIAC. So this will be just another markedly incomplete page.Digitallymade (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You are interfering with my editing of the Sig Sauer Page

I am working on the product lines of Sig Sauer, you should NOT have reverted that change.Digitallymade (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Untrue. Promotional entries from a primary source are unnecessary. The fact that Sig Sauer sells t-shirts on their site is unencyclopedic. Scr★pIronIV 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 :Optics and Electro Optics, grip lit and caliber exchange kits are significant products

Digitallymade (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please take all article content discussion to the Article's Talk Page. Scr★pIronIV 16:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Will Young

Hi. My edit is constuctive - people from the UK are typically referred to as English, Scottish etc instead of British unless there's a known issue. Also, adding United Kingdom at the end of a location is considered superfluous (see majority of articles) - the county should also be present.

I'm not involved in a content dispute - the other editor who began edit warring with me has been warned by multiple admins about mindlessly reverting and reporting users.

Cheers 78.146.192.167 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have seen enough of the arguments between folks who constantly revert back and forth between "British" and "English" - it is disruptive, and has been restored to the long standing version. Take it to the article talk page, and make your case there. Scr★pIronIV 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But this is where you are wrong - he was described as English for several years, and then changed with no explanation! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Young&diff=746448112&oldid=744999301 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.192.167 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is exactly my point. It was changed, the change was accepted, and experienced eyes have been on the article for months. Your IP-hopping edit-warring is immaterial; you need to take it to the article talk page and try to get a consensus there. The edit has been challenged per WP:BRD - you were Bold, you were Reverted, now Discuss on the ARTICLE TALK PAGE and don't edit war about it. Scr★pIronIV 16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my edits

I am an employee at this school and I am trying to get the FACTS out on the different details. All my edits ARE TRUE and the website referred to is our official page as I created it under the schools and departments directions. Using the historical facts documented at the school. Please stop removing these and saying they are not verified. They are the most verified you can get! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgiant (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

1) You have a conflict of interest. As an employee of the school, you should not be editing the article at all.
2) I did not say they were not verified, I said they were not notable. You are including non-notable entries into a list of notable persons.
Please read WP:WTAF and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before you continue. Scr★pIronIV 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Conservatives Against Trump

My original post on Dana Loesch's page was a sourced article she wrote in National Review. Why would you censor an article that she wrote and goes to her political point of view on her Wikipedia page. It was her point of view, not mine. If you continue to block this edit/posting, I will file a complaint with Wikipedia. You have no right to prevent a sourced referenced article written by the author on their own page. Marksa3 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are adding incorrect information to many pages. The article was written by Glenn Beck. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul W.S. Anderson & AVP

Hi! I don't know if you read the post I made on the Paul W.S. Anderson talk page before you reverted my edit but I urge you to do so. I agree AVP didn't have a source. IMDb mentions Impact is a non-credited production company that worked on the film. Due to the nebulous nature of Impact online (again, on the talk-page) it's hard to find a source. I want to believe IMDb isn't lying but I'll drop that for now. However, Paul W.S. Anderson has himself stated he owns and operates Impact Pictures so the statement is verifialy true (he mentions this explicitly on the Resident Evil: Apocalypse commentary; would that suffice for a source). --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Sources are not optional, and primary sources are inadequate. Scr★pIronIV 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

New Section

Hi,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I just tried to make an edit to the Gray Whale page, and I think you took my edit away. If you could give me any tips, i'd appreciate it. The Gray Whale blows I saw yesterday were distinctive and heart-shaped. I did a google image search, and the shape of the blow is definitely not a V. What is the source for the characterization of the low as a V? i know I'm a newbie, and I hope I'm now bugging you. Any advice will be welcome.

Mark Bugsii64 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! I changed it beack because you specified your personal interpretation of the shape, where the original content specified a source for it. While editing, wikipedia editors do not rely on personal experience; rather, we rely on what reliable sources say about a topic. Please see WP:RS. Your edit summary specifies "most often described as..." - if you could find a source that specifies that, it would be helpful. Scr★pIronIV 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Heartland Baptist Bible College page

I appreciate your help. I am new to Wikipedia and not trying to cause problems--honestly. The wording of the current lead line seems intended to emphasize seemingly negative qualities about the institution, which does not seem fair. The lack of accreditation is discussed and explained below. I researched this original wording form years ago, and it was written by someone who wrote other unfavorable material about the institution. The other material was revised. This was not. I'm honestly not trying to hide anything--just be consistent with the wording allowed for other institutions. R495364r (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R495364r (talk • contribs)

What you need to do is to take this to the Article Talk Page, to gain consensus for your change. Two experienced editors have disagreed to its removal; please read WP:BRD which describes a standard method of editing when there is disagreement. Basically, that you made a Bold edit, were Reverted, and now you need to Discuss it. Continually re instituting challenged changes is edit warring. Scr★pIronIV 21:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Where do I go to make this discussion? Again, I'm new. I don't even mind that "unaccredited" is listed within the first few lines of the description. It's just that it being the first descriptor seems motivated by something other than just fair description. Plenty of other vo-tech type institutions do not seek accreditation. Their purpose is just to provide practical training. R495364r (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Every page has an associated Talk Page. Click the "Talk" tab to the right of the "Article" tab at the top of the article's page. open a discussion there, as you have opened this one here. Scr★pIronIV 21:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. Is it okay if I just suggest a fair re-write of the whole paragraph that clearly includes accreditation status but does so in a way that seems for fair to the institution? If I suggest those changes, will anyone know to discuss? If I make changes, will they just automatically be reverted?

Well, you have at least two editors who are watching the page. I have already responded there, and will certainly give my input if you make a suggestion. Scr★pIronIV 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!R495364r (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

grave dancer

hi - It is not grave dancing to let talkpage editors and the subject of the Bio know what has happened to the main contributor to their bio - your hiding the details will achieve nothing - I will contact them all to let them know. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: No, please don't. There's no need. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The block notification was placed on the user's talk page. Placing an inaccurate statement on an article's talk page is inappropriate. The user in question was not blocked from editing that article; they were blocked from editing. Propagating that block notice across article talk pages gives the appearance of grave dancing, whether you realized it at the time or not. Whether you contact those individuals is up to you, but would strongly suggest that it could easily come across as a personal attack against the editor in question. Scr★pIronIV 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Chuck E. Cheese's Additions

Hey ScrapIronIV,

Thanks for being vigilant in tracking others' changes on Wikipedia. I'm a little confused about your recent reversion of what I added to the Chuck E. Cheese's page; I included a citation to a national news source (Cox Media Group) when I added what I did. When you reverted it, I went and found another source (an article from the official Chuck E. Cheese's website), but why was my first citation not good enough?

Two things:
1) Somehow, I missed the initial citation in the middle of your entry when looking at the addition. For that, I apologize. My eyes must have been tired.
2) More importantly, it appears to me to be a promotional addition, and of little encyclopedic value. Some stores, at some times, are adjusting to accommodate a subset of individuals with a particular disability. Great from a publicity perspective, but not a notable event.
I wouldn't have thought it belonged in an encyclopedia regardless of how well it was sourced. I applaud their efforts, but would not include it here. Scr★pIronIV 13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Chisels are for wood and stone".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisel#Metalworking Just that qualification too far. Hengistmate (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The use of that word introduced an ambiguous spelling, and I used the term found elsewhere in the article to avoid it. Scr★pIronIV 12:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What? Hengistmate (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

About the revision to Frankenstein

The revision to Frankenstein that was noted elsewhere, and which you undid, did not provide a reliable source for its content because of that unfortunate phenomenon all too common to users of Wiki--there not being any one single reliable source to consult. The user of Wiki who entered that revision expresses his apologies for having been so handicapped. Parker Gabriel 18:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker Gabriel (talk • contribs)

Maxi Pereira

Hi there from Portugal,

I don't feel this is an accolade worth mentioning (a newspaper team of the year), but OK i'll take it to WP:FOOTY to see "what gives". Sorry for any inconvenience, cheers --193.137.135.2 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Billy the Kid

In this edit you continued an edit war for which two editors were just blocked, and appear to be editing against the consensus on the talk page. Can you please consider self-reverting? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Scr★pIronIV 12:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Naperville Illinois Counties Map

Dear User:ScrapIronIV, it appears you have reverted several contributions of mine to the Naperville, Illinois page. Please note that I am aware of some issues with the PNG file I uploaded and am working to create a new one that is less blurry. Since most of the articles relating to incorporated areas in DuPage and Will counties have picture maps showing their location in their respective county, I saw it fit to create a map showing Naperville's location in both, since it is right on the border. It is somewhat based off of a similar file, used to depict the location of Aurora, Illinois in two counties. I understand your concerns, and will get back to you once I've successfully created a new PNG file tor the page. Thank you and have a nice day!

Mark Vs in Berlin.

You know it's wrong, so why are you doing it? Because you can? Hengistmate (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, if that isn't a failure to assume good faith then such a thing has never happened here. Scr★pIronIV 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, seriously. Hengistmate (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese's reversions

Hey ScrapIronIV, 

I'm very confused why you've been reverting my additions to the Chuck E. Cheese's page: I added 2 properly cited references, one from a reputable news source and one from the company Chuck E. Cheese's itself.

I'm somewhat of a beginner, so I might be stuck in some false paradigm of what constitutes a proper citation. Can you help me understand?

Thanks,

Istrebityel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istrebityel (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not the citation; it is the fact that it is not a notable enough event to cover in an encyclopedia. Ot is promotional for the company, merely an attempt to gain publicity. It does not belong, no matter how well sourced it is. Scr★pIronIV 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

educating me

dear Scr★pIronIV I'd never been "thanked" before -- I didn't even know that feature existed! (There is so is so much more I still have to learn.) yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your dedication to maintaining a neutral tone on those articles. I had to wade back into it myself on some retail store/mall articles recently. Happy editing! Scr★pIronIV 22:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

two tank

@ScrapIronIV: Where is disruptive edits. This subject and other subject matter are similar. You read the article before you revert ? Maybe your edits are distruptive. My intention was not a edit war. K1 88-Tank You read this article ? Wikipedia:Verifiability I recommend reading here --78.165.71.46 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There is significant difference between their development. One is based on a US prototype, and is indigenously designed, developed, and built in South Korea - thus the single origin in the info box. The other is based on a South Korean prototype and has the chassis indigenously developed in Turkey, and the main gun and one of the engines developed in South Korea - hence TWO countries in the infobox. That is the difference, if you read the articles. Scr★pIronIV 21:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: The main gun developed in Germany Not South korea. The engine is now unclear. You are wrong about this. Altay based on a K2 Black Panther prototype, and is indigenously designed, developed, and built in Turkey. Two tanks are similar subject. I propose you a neutral viewpoint.78.165.71.46 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Per the article itself:
*"The tank will benefit both from indigenously developed systems and from the cannon technology of the South Korean K2 Black Panther, accorded by an agreement signed with South Korea. The candidates for the engine are German MTU Friedrichshafen and the new South Korean engine which is currently under development."
Multiple countries of design and development after base prototype acceptance. This is not worth using multiple IP's and edit warring over. I know you are proud of your country's tank, but Turkey is not performing all of the design work. Scr★pIronIV 21:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and you are at four reverts today - I would recommend you self-revert. Scr★pIronIV 21:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, But you provoked me. Tank does not use the K2 engine. The engine is not quite clear at this time. The article needs updating.

Per the article itself:

  • Technical Support Enabler: Hyundai Rotem
  • Otokar (main contractor)
  • Fire Control System, Command Control Communication Information System, Laser Warning System, Driver's Vision System, Navigation System, IFF system subcontractor: ASELSAN
  • 120 mm 55 caliber Primary Weapon subcontractor: state owned MKEK (Mechanical and Chemical Industries Corporation),
  • Armour subcontractor: Roketsan

K1 88-Tank and this tank similar subject. There is a similar situation there too. I suggest read the article. In addition, all of the editing IP's are not me. The IP's on two tanks belong to me.--78.165.71.46 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

New section

Dear ScrapIronIV,

It has come to my attention that during one of the edits I provided within the last couple of days, I needed a "reliable source" for the above subject and because that requirement was not met to your satisfaction, then the entire entry way reverted to its original page. Yet, per the banner on the top of the "living subject's" page, it "needs more citations, reliable sources, etc." So, my question to you is this, how about you provide me a "list' of reliable sources that I am supposed to use and choose from? I would like more specific examples rather than generalities.

I consider myself an expert on this living subject. Yet, no COI either. My style of writing is what you have seen on the Wikipedia page and I am providing factual material on the living subject. The sources I have relied on so far, include websites, magazines, and books found both in and outside the United States, with all being reliable sources because of their accessibility except for a couple of sources. So at last count, I provided 43 references on the living subject, which included quotations by the living subject from his Official Facebook page.

Yet, from your action of removing the page, I have come to realize that you are not aware of the existence of certain magazines which are no longer in print. But this not mean that they didn't EVER exist, once the Internet became the number one resource tool for information? So, is that the unreliable source(s) you speak of? I would like more specifics on the matter, please? Because what I wrote in the first few paragraphs were factual about the living subject and so with that, I provided ample citation to it support it as well, including those comments by the "living subject" said from his Facebook page.

Thank you for your time. I hope that we can come to an equitable solution on this matter. Regards, Jikoshousatsu (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What I have seen on the subject are multiple issues, including using Facebook, Twitter, IMDB, and YouTube as sources. Please read WP:RS for instructions on what reliable sources are. Statements from the subject's own website are primary sources, and should not be used on the article. Additionally, you started your edits including this in your summary: "Permission was given to me by the musician and his manager to make the necessary changes" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the articles are not "owned" by their subjects. Your claim to specific contact with the subject and their manager does look like a conflict of interest. I left you a welcome message on your talk page, and there are links to helpful articles on how things work here. All further communication on this topic should be taken to the article's talk page, not here. This way, other editors can weigh in on the subject. Scr★pIronIV 13:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of banner

Your removed a banner from Minimum control speeds,

Should there not be some consenses before removing a banner, it was doing no harm and it is just asking for others help? Could you please put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.35.149 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Another editor suggested it be deleted, there was no consensus on that, there article is mainly ignored... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.35.149 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted a recently placed banner with the reasoning that it was improperly placed, and that the reasoning specified for its existence was incorrect. Any further discussion on this topic should be on the article talk page. Scr★pIronIV 21:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is my point, should not something as such a banner, which does not contain defamatory content, be left where it is and discussion started on the talk page? i.e. it should not just be for you to decided if it is improperly placed? Could you please put it back and allow others to comment first?

What part of "further discussion on this topic should be on the article talk page" is confusing you? Scr★pIronIV 21:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The part about the banner in the first place. i.e. a banner purposes is to invite people to review, edit and discuss? You are making a unilateral decision to remove it, so no one will 'talk' about it anyway! Would you please consider putting it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.35.149 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, so now you need to read WP:CIR. I have asked you to take this discussion to the article talk page and not here, on my talk page. I will entertain no further discussion here, although I have commented on the article talk page. Scr★pIronIV 22:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss on there, but I thought this was the correct place,I will ask my question on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.35.149 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Filipino Chinese cuisine history

There is little confidence in the identity of the traders who brought Chinese trade items to what is now the Philippines prior to the 15th century or so. We are only certain that many of the wares (porcelain, for example) excavated at various archaeological sites around the Philippines are of Chinese origin. Evidence for the identity of the merchants, sailors, and others is fragmentary and mostly anecdotal.

Following on that, while the majority of those Chinese who sojourned and settled in the Philippines (mostly from the 16th century on) were indeed from Fujian ("Hokkien" should be used only to designate the dialect of those from southern Fujian, not the place, although "hok-kian" in fact is "Fujian" in southern Min/Fujian dialect...), we have no idea where those occasional earlier Chinese visitors came from. There is also less confidence, even among culinary historians, about when particular dishes appeared in regional Chinese cooking. There is also no evidence of Chinese traders settling down with "Filipino wives". There is evidence of Filipinos traveling to Chinese territories where male Filipinos (Visayans) mated with female Chinese off the coast of Taiwan and Southern china as evident in: http://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-21-1983/scott.pdf and: http://nightskylie.blogspot.com/2015/07/philippine-quarterly-of-culture-and.html

Many Chinese foods that have become part of Filipino cuisine such as pancit, lumpia, bihon, taho, tokwat, tikoy, etc.are shared with other regions where the southern Fujianese emigrated (notably Taiwan, Indonesia, and the Malay Peninsula). It is possible to correlate the flow of those foods out of China with the history of migration from that area, but it is not convincing to suggest that these foods were adopted into Filipino cuisine as soon as a few Chinese appeared on Filipino shores. It is much more likely that the Chinese influence only became apparent when there were sufficient numbers of Hokkien-speaking Chinese in the Philippines, and this was most certainly not in the Song period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.20.110 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Armstrongism - list of "notable people"

You undid my revision of changing "notable people" to "notable men" just in case a woman in the church ever became notable. That seems ridiculous. I mean, it is possible that one day a monkey could do something notable in the church, so should we change it to "notable mammals" just in case? That is not even the point of the list, the list is not about anything notable that happens, it is about *men* specifically, in other words, leaders in the church. (Women can never be leaders in the church since the Bible expressly forbids them from teaching, or even speaking in meetings.) Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of section in the Gupta-family page

Could you please explain exactly why you removed my entry under the armaments section? The information that I added is factually correct and has even been confirmed by the Gupta family's attorney. I am very concerned about recent activities on specifically the Gupta-family and Bell Pottinger wiki pages.

Legitimate entries have been willfully removed. I kindly request that you add the entry that I deleted, or I will add it again. I again urge you to point out where my entry lacks neutrality.

Question - are you a employee of the Gupta family or Bell Pottinger ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodinsDrinker (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The entries require speculation on the part of the reader, and are tabloid in nature. Four separate entries leading to suggestive WP:SYNTH. Also, it is a violation of WP:BLP to hint at illegal activities when no one has been charged with a crime. Scr★pIronIV 20:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Tabloid in nature" ???? The sources I quite are from respected South African newspapers and media sources. With regards to illegal activities. It has been confirmed by an independent expert that it is currently illegal to own a non-demilitarised armoured vehicl in SOuth Africa. My entry was factually correct. I also mentioned that everything was confirmed by the lawayer for the family.

I am going o ask you again. Do you have a COI? I find your deletion very suspicious and I have a valid reason to be. I again refer you to the comments in the talk page, and I ask you again to reinstate the entry. YOu can edit my entry to make it more neutral, but to completely femove the entry reaks of COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodinsDrinker (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Factually correct does not mean encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia must adhere to WP:BLP. Casting aspersions on the article subject is not in keeping with our community standards. Whether, you, or anyone else, believes that someone has committed a crime, until someone is actually accused of it, we don't include it. I have no conflict of interest in this. Your suspicions are without merit. Further communication on this topic must be on the article's talk page, so that others may contribute to the conversation. No further discussion on this topic will be entertained here on my talk page. Scr★pIronIV 12:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppet reverts

I am aware SPI stops socks from creating new accounts but does every edit they make have to be reverted? I seem to agree with several of the edits you've changed, however I am not sure what you've mostly been disagreeing with in each revert. If I wish to edit these articles on my own will I have to worry about edit warring? Thank you Princetongirl516 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, the Princetongirl516 user account was created a few days after Theshabin13 was indef blocked. I have reported this user to check for sockpuppetry. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Crowdsourced Innovation edits

Does this article work for a reference ? - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/crowdsourced-innovation-for-government-projects-and-services-is-easier-said-than-done/articleshow/56943189.cms Mrwiki72 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)mrwiki72

No, it does not. The inclusion of this promotional neologism is not appropriate to the article at all. Please take all future discussion to the Article Talk page. Scr★pIronIV 12:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Username confusion

I was not aware I could not use "bot" in my name... I'm not sure what else I need to do to complete my name change as the admin notes are a bit vague Numericalorderbot (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Very well; I will file the SPI case before the name change. It will save everyone some time. Scr★pIronIV 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What is an SPI? I'm afraid I must be missing something Numericalorderbot (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Sandalwood Heights

I have gone to this school the last 3 years, isn't that credibility enough. I got these images from the Schools website, twitter accounts, and such. So I'll put those in the refrences and you just put those logos bacck up man. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafattyboi (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Sandalwood Heights

If you could undo the changes that'd be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafattyboi (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You have included unsubstatiated claims of copyright violation in your additions, and included original research in making those claims. Please provide reliable sources for your changes. Note that Twitter is not a reliable source. Scr★pIronIV 14:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 27: Sam Witwer

I understand the need for a citation. I've found one and will be adding it to the edits I made. Shadowrunner(stuff) 21:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The citation helps! It makes things a lot clearer. Scr★pIronIV 21:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

81.131.104.155

81.131.104.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is reverting your reverts. I can't immediately lay my hands on the ANI report you referred to, so hope you're around to do something. This is Paul (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also check out 31.52.135.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This is Paul (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank You. Hopefully these socks will be blocked (again) Scr★pIronIV 06:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Meadows additions were neutral

While unpopular the statements made had references and were neutral in nature. as he does support what is clearly an unpopular and surprisingly hurtful legislation. Please note the hundreds of references that are neutral about this topic. thanks Is one leads a campaign to take insurance away from the poor, old, and enfeebled it is not illegal, but it is on record.

Bess — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkHarder (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. All future discussion on this topic needs to be taken to the article talk page, so that other editors may contribute to the discussion. Scr★pIronIV 20:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Richthofen

No it wasn't, it was a constituent kingdom of the German Reich. Yes, in Richthofen's time the Kingdom of Prussia still existed juridically, but had been subsumed into newly united Germany In 1871, two decades before von Richthofen was born. The Pour le Mérite was still awarded during WWI, but it was perceived as being awarded by Germany as a whole. Sca (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as is discussed under the Pour le Merite article. Public perception, and all that. It does not negate the history of the specific award being of Prussian origin, and Prussia had not disappeared. Much like England and Scotland did not disappear in the British Empire. One would give appropriate attribution to English or Scottish customs and awards. Scr★pIronIV 16:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

List of United States cable and satellite television networks

I stand corrected on my usage of the rules about official links in infoboxes since it wasn't an infobox being edited. You got me on that one. However, the rules including official links still appear to be more flexible than the rules involving general external links and I think I can demonstrate to rational satisfaction that I have the following usage of the rules to support my edits adding official links...

"Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any..." WP:ELYES

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" WP:ELNO

"Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided..." WP:ELOFFICIAL

"If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate..." WP:ELMINOFFICIAL

"More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." WP:ELMINOFFICIAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggums537 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Huggums537 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 

The following quote from the guidelines implies that lists are governed by a different set of parameters than "regular" articles.

"Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at..." WP:NOTLINK 

The only reason anyone could even try to claim I posted a "long list of links" is because the very nature of the article just so happens to be a very long list itself. It's reasonable to assume the official links are appropriate in this context. I even linked a few of the entries to their corresponding internal pages where they had been overlooked. (So, not all of the links were external official websites).

I put in a large amount of time to find the official web pages to each of the channel entries that didn't have internal links or any other kind of information linking to them whatsoever. It's frustrating that I did all this work knowing that I'm within the guidelines and the context of this kind of article, thinking I'm contributing, then it all gets stripped away in one fell swoop. I would not have invested my time and effort into this if I had known it was possible to be flagged as a potential vandal by some piece of software WP:TW programming just because there was a lot of activity on this article. It's a huge honkin' list! Of course there's going to be high activity when someone is doing a thorough job. 

Please take all this into consideration and look at everything in detail. You can check the links yourself. They are all either official links or internal links. It all checks out.

I'm asking you to take the time to do this so you can see for yourself that everything is kosher and if so, please restore the page so I can continue my work. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC) 

Well, nevermind. All of my work is permanantly undone now anyway and can't be restored thanks to a beginners mistake I made of making conflicting intermediate edits that won't allow me to revert back to my original edits even if I wanted to. Believe me, I tried and there's no way I'm going back to do them one by one all over again just to have someone come along and strip them away without any discussion. So, I guess you win this argument after all, despite the fact that you didn't even participate in the discussion. Imagine that. Huggums537 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Scrap's last edit was made 2 hours before your first post in this section. It's more than likely he hasn't even seen any of the discussion yet. Please Assume Good Faith. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, BilCat. You may also have something to say about my comments on this user's talk page as well then: User talk:38.66.209.91 Huggums537 (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Short answer, Wikipedia is not a directory; why do you think that for so many years these links were not already added? We do not include links external links in the body of an article. The entries that were linked in this fashion are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, certainly they are not notable enough to warrant an exclusion to that rule. For me, I would see the page deleted entirely per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Scr★pIronIV 12:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, I understand your point of view and thank you for acknowledging the conversation (even if it is after the fact, only satisfying public perception). I personally found the article to be useful for a project I'm working on, regardless of the debate of whether it should or shouldn't be there. I should also thank you for the lesson in what kind of reactions it is possible for me to expect from editorial disagreements in the future. This empowers me as an editor to be more prepared to cope with future disagreements more effectively and appropriately. I may have lost much time and work by you reverting my edits, but I gained something far more important, which is valuable technical insight into how Wikipedia works and how the system can be abused by people. I feel confident that I will start winning on Wikipedia before I even have half of the expertise that you possess and the good news is that you will never catch me cheating or abusing the system in order to accomplish my goals. Thanks again. Huggums537 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Two quick things: 1) You should add comments, rather than modifying old ones. It makes it easier for the flow of a conversation to be followed, and 2) If you are thinking about "winning on Wikipedia" then your are starting off with a misperception. It is not about winning and losing; it is about maintaining quality content in accordance with the community's standards. Happy Editing! Scr★pIronIV 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for the tips. The first one is somewhat helpful. On the second, either I have miscommunicated, or you have misinterpreted my perception of "winning on Wikipedia". I perceive "winning on Wikipedia" as being the experience I gain for producing contributions that make Wikipedia more useful. I hope I have communicated more clearly about what I perceive and this clears up any misunderstandings. Huggums537 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to change my username to WinningorLosingonWikipedia. That way everything I do will always be about winning or losing on Wikipedia and nobody will ever be able to tell me differently. Ha! Huggums537 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, Here's something interesting regarding the advice you gave me to "...add comments, rather than modifying old ones.". I found out on WP:REDACT that my practice of modifying my own comments before they are answered is perfectly acceptable. Although, I do see your point about the flow of the conversation being easier to follow and I agree with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggums537 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Huggums537 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If you need to experiment with signatures, please do so on your own page, or in your sandbox. I will be archiving this shortly. Thank you. Scr★pIronIV 18:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the multiple signature edits. I felt compelled to correct my mistake of failing to sign all of my comments. I can be OCD like that sometimes. However, I respect your userspace and honor your wishes for me not to make multiple corrections to my comments since you have defined this as being too experimental for your page. Therefore, I shall cease any corrections to my comments as per your rights WP:TALK to your talk page as well as your personal wishes. I also would like to apologize for my previous behaviour, as I redirect my attitude toward a more cooperative effort in the community. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

109.180.164.43

I saw you revert an edit from said user stating it was a sockpuppet. We have had a debate with said user. Who do you think the ip is a sockpuppet of and have they been reported? Reb1981 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For full details, you can see it here Scr★pIronIV 12:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide "sources" that WOT has gone out of business.

The site is active, the forum is active, the reviews are active, there are no press releases from the company suggesting they are gonig out of business. Thank you. -213.152.162.99 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article does it suggest otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
      • In the edits that you and ScrapIronIV keep restoring. -213.152.162.99 (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed from distribution is not the same as going out of business. Nowhere has that been stated in the article. I will not engage further with you on my talk page, as you have a habit of shouting, edit-warring, accusing decent editors of being vandals, and hiding behind a VPN. Keep it on the article talk page, and maybe read WP:NPA as you go. Scr★pIronIV 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

white phos

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_phosphorus_munitions&oldid=prev&diff=784100306

Please think a little more carefully about this revert. Of course the source is reliable. But it is a "breaking news" type report from the middle of the war, to the effect that ICRC had become aware of the use of white phos but had no evidence of illegal use. It also said they didn't have much of an idea of what was going on as they had no access to the battle zone to collect evidence, and it was issued two days before the notorious white phos attack on the UNRWA warehouse.

In the article, this statement has been excerpted and highlighted, with no qualifications and no mention of the time frame, so that it implies some kind of certification by ICRC that there was no problem. This, alone, is enough to justify removing the line. In this particular case we have explicit RS documentation of the way this statement was misused by Israeli official publicists, followed by an explicit denial and clarification from the same ICRC source:

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."[71] Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue [of whether the IDF was using white phosphorus], they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."[72]
On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.[73] Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.[74]
In response to media requests, the ICRC further clarified its position. "The fact that International Humanitarian Law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal,"

Were you speed-reading or what? I don't understand how it should be controversial that the source must not be misused in this way. It's a remnant of a failed propaganda strategy from Israel that was obsolete a few days after they tried it. Why it's sitting in an article in 2017 is beyond me. TiC (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The article states what it states, and HRW is an active participant in the story, making it a WP:PRIMARY source. The article does not imply any "certification" - it specifically states that the ICRC had no evidence of illegal use. Nothing that you have posted above refutes that, just various levels of spin. Point to any place where the ICRC said it had evidence that WP was used illegally, and then the "explicit denial" statement will have merit. Please take all further comment on this topic to the article's talk page, so that this important discussion can include other editors. Thanks! Scr★pIronIV 13:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Senate House/Norton House = same company

This is regarding the "norton house education" page and whether they're the same establishment as "senate house education." proof of the fact can be found under a quick whois search here: https://www.netim.com/domain-name/whois-search.html for both www.senate-house.org (the senate house website as per the article previously) and www.nh.edu.hk(current website for norton house). You can see that although they have changed the name of the organization. The registration address and phone number remain exactly the same. Technically speaking the same address is not foolproof evidence that it's the same company, but landline phone numbers are registered to individuals/companies, hence that is definitive. They seem to be trying to rename themselves in order to distance themselves from that sexual scandal which I was personally affected by during the time they called themselves senate house. Furthermore, inside Norton House's own facebook page this photo can be found of their premises : https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12115977_986420294743726_6609513248982310915_n.jpg?oh=ce0ef4e107a23863629706111725988c&oe=59E4CDA2. Comparing that to the premises of senate house via a google search : https://plus.google.com/107389313111910991089 , it's obvious it's the same company. Not to mention the fact that www.senate-house.org currently automatically redirects to www.nh.ed.hk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.216.77.37 (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This would be original research, and is not permitted. This entire issue is a significant WP:BLP issue, and unless it has been clearly reported in verifiable sources, it cannot be included in the article. Please take all further comment on this issue to the Article Talk Page so that other editors may weigh in on the subject. I will not respond further here on my talk page; it is far too important to be excluding the rest of the Wikipedia community. Scr★pIronIV 12:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScrapIronIV/Archive3&oldid=1139404400"