User talk:Picard's Facepalm

July 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Acid jazz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You could have simply edited the part out you think was OR, vs shitcan the whole thing - which was ref'ed. I will be re-fixing that momentarily. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Miami Vice

Is there a reason you believe this URL

• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959822,00.html

Is not dead? -- GreenC 19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And to verify I checked the header and it clearly says HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found it would be impossible for this page to be anything but 404. -- GreenC 19:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the URL in the link. The one at web.archive.org is - and it is more than alive. I can send a screenshot if you like. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:JesseRafe

For your information, I did not break any protocol, but your issue is with how Wikipedia automatically parses welcomes vs warnings. And as you hadn't been welcomed yet, I welcomed you, rather than warned you, which would go as a new topic post on the bottom. Welcomes always automatically get added to the top.

There are a lot of helpful links there which you should consult, and you would probably be a more successful contributor here if you kept it handy as a reference rather than delete it.

Moreover, you went beyond the pale and issued a passive-aggressive warning on my User Talk, which, couple with the edit summary on your own talk page removing the welcome shows a clear lack of assumption of good faith. Incidentally, one of the subject areas of the welcome links left for you. Lastly, given your facility with dropping TPG shortlinks, I may have to amend my prior comment and correct it to state that it only appears that this account has not been welcomed before. Infer from that what you may. JesseRafe (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question was not parsed by WP, but rather by your employment of WP:TWINKLE, which is of course a 3rd-party, wiki java gadget/add-on, and not part of WP proper. As it says in the opening line of the aforementioned gadget's page, You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies. This of course includes proper location of anything added to a talk page by Twinkle.

While even unnecessary "welcomes" may be automatically added to the top by Twinkle - it is more than possible to easily move newly added section(s) to their appropriate location(s) within a talk page, like I had to do for you here because you again violated WP:TPG and WP:BOTTOMPOST by illicitly jamming an unfounded warning, compounded with your diatribe above into the middle of my talk page - for the second time.

Let me be clear: There will not be a third.

Additionally - your warning unfoundedly went straight to a Level3 - bypassing all semblances of escalation protocol, as defined in WP:UWLEVELS and wrongly identified my correctly placed, Level1 note (not a warning) to your talk page as Disruptive Editing, and was further, incorrectly tagged in your revert of that note as trolling - as was an innocent WP:DAB notification by a bot, which was also deleted courtesy of your continued, reckless and destructive use of TW. All of this conduct wrapped together constitutes nothing short of WP:TWABUSE and template abuse and a gross violation of WP:UWS (and extension thereby of WP:CIVIL). Some might even go so far as to considering WP:HARASSMENT.

If this sort of unacceptable conduct continues, I will be forced to open an WP:ANI to have your conduct reviewed and acted upon by the administrators. A quick perusal of ANI yields that you are certainly no stranger there, having run the gamut in repeated incidents & blocks for everything from personal attacks to edit warring to harassment (quite recently at that). I'm sure your name hitting the board yet again will make the administration a bit less than happy.

To avoid that - it is worth your while to review the helpful links in your welcome template so you can remember why you are supposed to be here. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please refrain from defamatory false accusations please? I didn't "add additional images" on the C-5 Galaxy page! --Loginnigol (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah so then this edit didn't actually happen, and had to be reverted not just once but then you began engaging in an edit war and had to be reverted again. That was clearly a figment of everyone's imagination. Then you come here and post this comment to my page??? Here's your response: WP:DNTL Picard's Facepalm (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Please see the discussion here, concerning Just plain Bill's editing behavior, and comment as you see fit. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Sorry to hear that he has been edit-tracking you. That's pretty shitty for any editor to do. That being said - it appears I have no dog in this fight. I checked my interaction history with him - and while he and I disagree on the use of commenting markup tags on a single article Mixing console, after checking his contribs - seems we do not cross paths anywhere else. So at the very least he is not edit-tracking me. I wish you luck on your quest to be able to edit in peace - but I would not be able to add anything to support or further your administrative action effort. Best of luck... Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Mach

you need to learn what is a Mach

And you need to learn how to WP:CITE WP:RS and WP:SIG. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

true i don't know as use wiki, but is best don't edit article you don't know, for the Mach http://www.tscm.com/mach-as.pdf

You can start at WP:HI. And you should probably heed your own advice. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Edit on Top Gun: Maverick

You reverted changes I made that made the article more accurate. I am a retired naval officer myself, and I can assure you, that absent a conviction by court martial, there is no such thing as a "former admiral." Admirals retire, even at reduced pay grades as a result of minor misconduct.

The trailer for the movie has a line spoken (I believe) by Ed Harris, "you should be at least a two-star admiral by now." That too, is inaccurate. NO ONE in the navy uses that phrase. The usual phrase would be, "you should be at least two-star by now." The admiral rank is inferred.

You sensed correctly that I am not a regular editor. I really should play in "the sandbox," and review every article related to or involving military protocol.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.188.24 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As retired USAF I understand and agree with what you are saying in principal. However, and unfortunately - in WP is not where you can change the story as it was written. The article of any movie, book, tv show, etc - can only be used to reference the facts as they were presented in the show/material itself - and not the reality behind it. If in a movie Ed Harris says "the grass is pink" when we all know that the grass is green - then the article must reflect that per the story - the grass is indeed pink. Don't get me wrong - fact-checking and accuracy is largely the point of an encyclopedic reference such as WP... but in this context, it is only against the material to which it is referencing - despite it's own inaccuracies. I would dare say your notes & objections are better located on movie-specific databases (like IMDB). Either way - always be ready with citable references... be it here or there or elsewhere. Thanks! Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You were not an USAF pilot. You are a wannabe. I worked for everyone and everything you've ever hoped you would be. I AM that guy. You reached too far here bro. I can prove you're a faker. Keep it up. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

LOL! I never said I was a USAF pilot. Please learn how to read the details. One detail that is clear however - yes... you are "that guy": A straight up narcissist. The world, nor WP has no place for those. Go away. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

The following discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Griefing People

I have already warned you. Stop griefing me. Just stop. This is my final warning to you. After this, you will be banned. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you are rambling on about here... if you have grief issues you should discuss those with your therapist. I am simply engaging in polite discussion - which you have now taken to abusing. There will be no more of that. As an aside - you are of absolutely no capacity to issue threats to anyone, nor to enact a ban upon anyone. You have a clear inability to understand the basic concepts of how WP even operates - let alone to ban. So - as with the previous thread, we are done here.

Do not darken my talk page any further. Any future comments on my talk page by you will be deleted and you will find yourself facing a WP:HARASSMENT complaint. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Archive.today

Please read this post from the archive.today owner: https://blog.archive.today/post/659307974748160000/ . It is supposed to redirect to something else. That way, if he loses that "something else", the .today domain will redirect to another domain. (And BTW: Thank you for your former military service - the country appreciates you!) Rlink2 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Clear And Present Danger (1994) / Vondie Curtis-Hall

You have removed my edit of adding Vondie to the cast, but he's definitely in it, he plays an unnamed Voice-Print Analyst and you can find it everywhere on the internet. Look up the movie's IMDB page or do a google image search or watch the movie again because he is definitely in it.

You didn't cite any references, IMDB is not considered a WP:RS (See: WP:IMDB) and it is not a starring role. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Rock

Dear Picard's Facepalm,

I just wanted to send you this message as an apology for potentially starting an edit war on The Rock page. I felt that the version I created flowed better but if you think otherwise, I won't stop you from reverting it. I mean no ill will towards you or anyone/anything else, and I just wanted to get that across.

Hope you have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.65.86 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Antonov AKS

I noticed that you removed the Antonov AKS from the Antonov An-225 Mriya because it was canceled. Canceled related aircraft are usually included in the infobox no matter what stage they were in before cancellation. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Why do you think it is important that...

People know that Mat Velloso posted a video of a mod (not a feature) on Twitter? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_(2020_video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1163623871

Why is this tweet https://twitter.com/matvelloso/status/1376212622828167171 important enough to be mentioned in an article about the game? Please undo your change and remove your message. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.105.173 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it is referenced by the article cited - and not everyone who reads the article may know about it. I actually didn't - and that is the entire point of an encyclopedic article with references: to inform people. There are people who don't know that MSFS 2024 or even 2020 exists... but they know that MSFS existed. Should the sections on 20 and 24 be removed just because some people do know they exist? Same logic applies. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about different topics. Please check the link I provided above. 86.88.105.173 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You are adding a sentence that states that a dude posted a video on twitter. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. In the future, please be more careful when using Twinkle. 86.88.105.173 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. I restored a destructive edit which you conducted to ref'ed & cited content. I am using TW just fine. In the future please do not WP:SANDBOX on people's talk pages as you have repeatedly with mine. Instead be sure to use the WP:PREVIEW to review and make changes before committing your edits. Also, be sure to include edit summaries when you make edits to articles and talk pages, and consider WP:REGISTERing a new account rather than using an anonymous, shared IP address. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Restoring unreliable sources added by spammers

Please do not cite unreliable sources as you did in this edit. Reviews need to be cited to reliable sources. A reliable source is something like The New York Times, Variety, or the BBC. If you have trouble recognizing reliable sources, you can ask at WP:RSN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your determination of the site in question as being unreliable. There are numerous sources of reference cited all over the Project which may not hold the caliber and notoriety of NYT and the BBC - but are by all means considered reliable. Considering that the site in question has never been mentioned in WP:RSN and is also not listed in WP:RSP - in addition to having over 700 movie reviews by over a dozen different reviewers, current film & actor news, conducts and publishes interviews - I don't know that being dismissive of the source's reliability is the right play to make.

While I agree the WP article editor him/herself was spamming (as evidenced by their edit history) - the source itself does seem to meet WP:SOURCEDEF, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It also has an open call on the site for additional reviewers & contributors. Taking all of this in totality - I'd have to say it meets RS criteria, and is not exactly a small, self-serving potato. I'd like to re-add the material and ref - but if you really think it warrants further scrutiny and input from others - I'd be happy to start a discussion on WP:RSN. Looking forward to your reply. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of film review blogs. Most of them are run by enthusiastic amateurs. An open call for contributors is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. They should be exclusively hiring professional journalists who have experience, not enthusiastic fans. We have sites like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times that regularly review American films. There is no reason to resort to blogs run by amateurs, which would place undue weight on their opinions. This site is analogous to WhatCulture (see WP:WHATCULTURE), a site that the author also writes for. "Writers should have some mix of expertise, experience, and/or enthusiasm" (my emphasis added) from their recruitment page is basically the same criticism as WhatCulture ("no expertise"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your time and explanation. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit to the movie Heat (1995)

You are absolutely wrong about my edit. I added additional actors/actresses to that section that are not only well known, but more well known than the ones that are there/you kept. I also rearranged some of them, with the most well known toward the top. For example, Val Kilmer is at the bottom of the list and is one of the most well known actors in recent history. 66.220.108.197 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If they are well-known or not is not the point. The infobox is for starring roles, and is reflected in the template for the infobox: "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits.". Their arrangement should also be reflective of the billing block. Please be sure to adhere to these guidelines - they are readily evident in all of the film related articles on WP. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Removing others' posts

Please leave my talk page posts alone. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't issue lvl4im warnings on user or anonip talk pages which have only warranted a lvl1. I am all about bringing the hammer when it comes to people vandalizing WP, but there is a warning escalation protocol which needs to be followed in such instances. As a veteran editor and vandal fighter - you already know that. I get equally frustrated when I see articles I monitor get hit with ridiculous vandalism time and again - often of the same type. But until/unless the vandal escalates - we cannot either. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You edit anyway you want, leave my stuff alone. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not the correct response. See WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:RTP, and WP:UWLEVELS. Now I need to look into warning & WP:TWABUSE. And here I was hoping for a quiet day. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't care, it's my response. Like I said, edit the way you believe and leave me alone. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, your responses here have ensured that will not happen. Your warn template history is quite extreme, even by my standards - and that's quite an accomplishment. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Thanks

Since you thanked my edit, maybe you'll like to comment here. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Self trout r.e. Bobby Lonardo

Sorry for draftifying, that was dumb of me. Qcne (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries.... things happen. Looks like it has all been handled now and the pages & OA are gone (INDEF'ed). --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)