Jump to content

User talk:Schazjmd: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Dericiana (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Line 150: Line 150:
Now the clip is conclusive proof, it is not invented, she appears in that video and her words are literal without interpretations, she is not putting herself out of place, because part of what is explained about her participation in the program from Netflix [[User:Dericiana|Dericiana]] ([[User talk:Dericiana|talk]]) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Now the clip is conclusive proof, it is not invented, she appears in that video and her words are literal without interpretations, she is not putting herself out of place, because part of what is explained about her participation in the program from Netflix [[User:Dericiana|Dericiana]] ([[User talk:Dericiana|talk]]) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Dericiana|Dericiana]], I'm afraid you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are multiple sources writing about Poklonskaya's internet "celebrity", that gives it significance worth mentioning in her article. I am not denying and the sources are not denying that she said that sentence. The sources also place it in the greater context of the full documentary, and that's what our article should summarize. You'll also notice that in the edited clip, she doesn't say ''she'' believed it; all she says is her grandmother told her that. So what? '''Please''' stick to what the sources say. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Dericiana|Dericiana]], I'm afraid you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are multiple sources writing about Poklonskaya's internet "celebrity", that gives it significance worth mentioning in her article. I am not denying and the sources are not denying that she said that sentence. The sources also place it in the greater context of the full documentary, and that's what our article should summarize. You'll also notice that in the edited clip, she doesn't say ''she'' believed it; all she says is her grandmother told her that. So what? '''Please''' stick to what the sources say. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
::So do I have to put the episode on Netflix? Because she says it literally. But tell me, do you reverse it because you have a preference towards her? That is not very neutral, I am not attacking her, I am not offending her, I AM NOT LYING, but you only revert because you want to hide the truth, I am no longer saying that it is a meme, nor that her null objectivity is in doubt when There are dozens of videos of historians who question their objectivity, I only write what is true, explain to me why you can choose the words that should be put [[User:Dericiana|Dericiana]] ([[User talk:Dericiana|talk]]) 23:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 29 January 2024

Non Sequitur?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_family&diff=1184610165&oldid=1184599131 Lau737 (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lau737, you added the same content about unhappy marriages and depression to multiple articles. While that content might be relevant to Divorce and Marriage, it did not make sense in Nuclear family#"Traditional" North American family. My edit summary was referring to the literary meaning of non sequitur, but it would have been clearer if I'd written "not relevant to this context" so I apologize for not using that clearer explanation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be anywhere. Then again the submission is short and all those pages have sections of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lau737 (talkcontribs) 12:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betty R. King, You, Me & EVERYBODY else.

Why are you deleting Betty R. King's name? She been on this page for AGES. I didn't just add her for God's sake! Why are you not taking down Lisa Hart Carroll's name, too? She's in the cast... OR is she? She's not the subject of a Wikipedia article either. She doesn't have the classical Wikipedia #'s in [ ]'s citation bearer either. Go ahead, rip her name down, too. Why don't you take down Norman Bennett's, Troy Bishop's, Megan Morris' and Kate Charleston's names down while you're at it, as well. Go on, for they"re not "properly cited" either.

Don't believe these people exist? Go to IMDb.com and find out for yourself, and then delete--or NOT delete--them, too. (Or "cite" each one of them yourself, or, NOT.)

And, after that, you can then go to every Wikipedia page for a film and delete all of the names of all of the actors who don't link to a page on Wikipedia, IMDb.com, or any other online website that proves anyone and everyone exists. When you're through going through those God-knows-how-many-thousands-and-thousands-of-film-articles-and-lists of information, you can then move on to your starting to take down the uncited names of former 1970s Idaho county commissioners, obscure children's book authors, major league baseball players that played only two weeks in a season back in 1952, 19th-Century Catholic prelates who have served in dioceses in Finland, then follow that with every person whoever did voiceover radio work on "Little Orphan Annie" during the Great Depression. Delete them, OR cite them--I don't care.

But, for you to just delete Betty R. King's name off of all of these pages for films she was in? REALLY? You're NOT editing Wikipedia, but you ARE deleting artistic contributions (like Ms. King's), and you're also effectively destroying history, and doing so in a willful, malicious, discriminatory, and almost predatory fashion. Why are you following me around here and tossing out an elderly character actress' name (and actor's, for you, also, apparently, have something against the late British character actor and opera singer Byron Webster, for you deleted a number of his credits, too) and works, out the damned window? I have never had an experience like this before. Why are you being so truculent and extra-judicial with these minor information additions? Why don't just tear down every name of every uncited person or thing on Wikipedia while you're at it, for Pete's sake!

Wikipedia is supposed to be a universe of expanding knowledge, deepening learning, and done so through good-faith altruism, both voluntary and considerate, academic and subjective. So, stop acting like a black hole of history, mutualism, and sharing in this shared-by-all universe, or I will be forced to contact the proper and relevant administrative authorities of this website and deliver the necessary and requisite grievances apropos of this malice, inconsistency, bullying and methodological inconsistency, for it is NOT what Wikipedia is about and for, nor is it for you alone.

I'm simply here to share. Why you're here, I simply don't care.

Equal standards are supposed to apply to all, and what we are dealing with, in terms of expectations (and endearments) here, is possessing neither proportion nor fairness. 2600:1014:B073:93FB:B83D:F433:60A7:3649 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of hyperbole. You made an unsourced addition. Also, imdb is not a reliable source. See WP:CASTLIST. Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV etc. re Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

I understand your reversion, though it's sad that I'm apparently the only person on the planet who ever realized the obvious connection to Falstaff. (I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia where someone is allowed to make an obvious connection between one media production and another, without having a secondary source verify it; but that doesn't always happen, obviously.) Have a pleasant evening. John315 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you understand, @John315. There is original research in articles across Wikipedia, but it isn't allowed, it just means another editor hasn't caught it yet. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello, Schazjmd! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @StarTrekker, and Merry Christmas to you as well!! Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a spicy Christmas

Editor experience invitation

Hi Schazjmd :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Clovermoss! I'm thinking over the questions and may or may not post the answers I come up with, but I appreciate being invited. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Schazjmd!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Abishe, and the same to you! Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Astronauts edit

Thanks for your tweaks to my edits of the article. You wrote "one person wrote a column, that doesn't equal 'some' " -- I agree I overreached there. I even agree it was fine to move my comments farther down in the article so they are not as prominent. However, I think that moving them down leads to an awkward transition --

Many indigenous peoples trace their ancestry to “star-people” or the like—extra-terrestrials who as the progenitors of indigenous peoples cannot by definition be white or “Aryan.” [28]

These claims are so outlandish that up until recently, mainstream archaeologists essentially ignored them as absurdities

Did you intentionally mean to imply that indigenous peoples' origin stories are outlandish? Then doesn't that implication just further demonstrate “Indigenous erasure"? There are probably at least some cultural anthropologists who would disagree with the notion that these claims are outlandish. They might not be "factual", but that does not give license to de-value them . Perhaps more measured language is needed here. TPleft (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an unfortunate juxtaposition, @TPleft, thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TPleft, I've relocated the text. The reason that I moved it into the body is because the purpose of the lead is to summarize the key points of the body of the article, not to introduce new information that isn't mentioned later. You can learn more about the Wikipedia approach at WP:LEAD and WP:Lead dos and don'ts. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cat yronwode

I have no reason to be contentious, but I would like direction as to why you deleted my link from cat yronwode's Wikipedia web page to her business and research web page (Lucky Mojo Co.). Billfish (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it per WP:ELNO #19. Schazjmd (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Perry problem.

I've read that discussion page about why no one is allowed to mention 17 Again was Matthew's final film role all because of Rowing007 you agreed with. I know I had to confirm that it is 100% relevant that the film was his last and several users attempted to put back but Rowing kept removing it. I also tried to confront him but one of the admins Ivanvector tried to escalate me if I continue to make useless threats. Another admin Bsoyka also left me that nothing is allowed and I don't know how. This discussion has to end and confirm it that the film was his last. If not, God won't forgive me. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any reliable sources that draw attention to 17 Again being Perry's final film role? The film was made so long before his death that it really seems like meaningless trivia. Anyone interested in knowing what his final film role was can check his filmography, but it isn't significant to the movie itself. The discussion at Talk:17_Again_(film)#Matthew_Perry's_final_film_appearance has ended, and consensus is against including it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understand that. And thanks a lot Rowing007. You did best. But whatever then. 😒 182.255.41.207 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rod McKuen

Hello, if you would kindly click on the link in the citation I provided (linked here for your convenience), you will see that the inscription on the album cover specifically says: "'DON'T DRINK THE ORANGE JUICE' was written and recorded on March 25th - the natal day of Ms. O.J." OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the images makes it impossible to actually read the text, so I'll take your word for it. When you re-add the text, please note that in the prose: instead of "written and recorded on her birthday", say something like "which an inscription on the cover says was written and recorded on her birthday". Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the attribution per your request. For future reference, if you open the webpage on your computer, you can right-click on the image to open a higher-resolution version in a separate tab, which is more readable. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did that for the images when I checked the first time, the text is illegible. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to send you a higher resolution version if you would like - simply let me know. I have the higher resolution version downloaded. OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OiYoiYoink, thanks but not necessary. Like I said, I trust you on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that :) OiYoiYoink (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

I note your recent edit of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was reverted by the same unregistered user. This appears to be a wider issue with this editor, refer my comments at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilenart626, I'll take a look at that, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wise German ancestry

I read the section[1] (p. 42-44) as implying he had German ancestry. The passage begins "Many German-speaking Jewish and non-Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution came to southern California, as well as to New York... Although a number returned to Europe after the war, many stayed and made important contributions to the arts and the intellectual life of the region... There are numerous other examples of German contributions to Hollywood and also to Broadway." All persons mentioned in the section were either born in German-speaking Europe, as can be ascertained from their Wikipedia articles: Bertolt Brecht, Lion Feuchtwanger, Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, Alma Mahler, Franz Werfel, Frederick Loewe, Felix Salten, and Friedrich Gerstäcker, or were descendants of Germans/German-speaking Jews: Walt Disney[2], Gene Kelly[3], Alan Jay Lerner (couldn't find anything about his ancestry, but he had a German/Jewish surname)[4], Richard Rodgers[5], and Oscar Hammerstein II[6]. Now, it would be wierd mentioning Robert Wise in this section which claims "There are numerous other examples of German contributions to Hollywood and also to Broadway", and then goes on to mention exactly that if Wise didn't actually have German ancestry, which he obviously did (his mother's name was Longenecker). Wise's featured IMDB biography states "His parents were both of Pennsylvania Dutch (German) descent."[7]. This claim has been repeated on a few potentially unreliable websites[8][9] The IMDB biography was written by a Lukas Fichtinger of HTL Braunau [de]. I haven't been able to verify the claim of Wise's Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. I sent a message to the contact address mentioned in the IMDB biography, but it didn't deliver: Host or domain name not found. I believe the claim might come from the book "Robert Wise: A Bio-Bibliography"[10], though I haven't been able to verify this either. What are your thoughts? Endebyrd (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting the lead to the previous paragraph. The paragraph that mentions Wise says:

"The export of Broadway and Hollywood products, especially to Europe, is well known. One of the most interesting examples of this is the Sound of Music phenomenon."

It then goes on to mention the two versions of The Sound of Music. I don't the context is clear enough to assume every name mentioned in that pdf has German ancestry. IMDB is not a reliable source. And please don't ever consider "it's a German name" as evidence of ancestry.
If you check that book and find content supporting his various ancestries, great. Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware IMDB isn't a reliable source, I mentioned it for context. It was the only direct claim of German ancestry i could find online, but as it's origins remains unclear, I agree that more research is needed to confirm or deny the claim. Endebyrd (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "How German Is American?" (PDF). mki.wisc.edu. Max Kade Institute for German-American Studies. 2005. Retrieved January 22, 2024.
  2. ^ https://w.wiki/8vBg
  3. ^ https://w.wiki/8vBj
  4. ^ Lerner
  5. ^ "Rodgers & Hammerstein: A to Z". Charlotte Symphony Orchestra. March 1, 2019. Richard Rodgers was born into a prosperous German Jewish family in Arverne, Queens.
  6. ^ https://w.wiki/8v6z
  7. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0936404/bio/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
  8. ^ https://www.platinumproduction.net/robert-wise.html
  9. ^ https://scifi.radio/2022/09/10/remembering-robert-wise-on-his-108th-birthday/
  10. ^ * Thompson, F. (1995). Robert Wise: A Bio-Bibliography. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-313-27812-9. Retrieved January 22, 2024.

Request

Hello. In Swingin' with My Eyes Closed page I found out that Metro is a tabloid newspaper per WP:RSPSOURCES. Would you remove it? Regards. 2001:D08:2901:1C81:17AD:52FF:66B2:D7C (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Collective Intelligence

I am removing your comment that a reference I cited failed verification. Before adding your comment again, I ask that you please elaborate on why you flagged the following statement in the draft article as having failed verification: "The term "Collective General Intelligence" platform originated in 2018 with behavioral scientist Johannes Castner.[failed verification]". The reference provided clearly identifies the researcher's use of the term, and a search of the literature on Google Scholar does not reveal any earlier uses of the term within the same context. CognitiveMMA (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CognitiveMMA, see the draft's talk page, where I posted earlier today about the first three refs you cited and what the problems with them were. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra

It is good that you have done the thing of making the changes, I recognize and will not discuss what could have been given as speculation on my part, however you are not being impartial. On the Internet there are hundreds of memes echoing that situation, also on YouTube, millions of views on the videos where he states without arguments or evidence, and only because his grandmother said it, that no matter what others said (just as the quote ) Cleopatra was black, even though she herself says that they do not know the queen's race, I will reissue the correct wording with greater seriousness and more effort and with another quote. It is not a direct attack on her, it is a part of what was made known, as I said there are thousands of videos with millions of views of her comments, which surpass her works, therefore it is a situation that must be commented on, and therefore I will not stop, I am not speaking without evidence, I am arguing and presenting references. Good Day Dericiana (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dericiana, memes are not a significant item worth mentioning in an article about a person unless independent reliable sources have given attention to them. Same with YouTube videos. Your edits to the article must only summarize what reliable sources have written, and your summary must be a neutral reflection of what the source says. Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete something just because you don't like it, if it is referenced and with evidence

Memes have become part of popular culture and Wikipedia has also allowed them. A great example is the case of Natalia Poklonskaya, where she has a whole section about it on Wikipedia. Now the clip is conclusive proof, it is not invented, she appears in that video and her words are literal without interpretations, she is not putting herself out of place, because part of what is explained about her participation in the program from Netflix Dericiana (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dericiana, I'm afraid you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are multiple sources writing about Poklonskaya's internet "celebrity", that gives it significance worth mentioning in her article. I am not denying and the sources are not denying that she said that sentence. The sources also place it in the greater context of the full documentary, and that's what our article should summarize. You'll also notice that in the edited clip, she doesn't say she believed it; all she says is her grandmother told her that. So what? Please stick to what the sources say. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do I have to put the episode on Netflix? Because she says it literally. But tell me, do you reverse it because you have a preference towards her? That is not very neutral, I am not attacking her, I am not offending her, I AM NOT LYING, but you only revert because you want to hide the truth, I am no longer saying that it is a meme, nor that her null objectivity is in doubt when There are dozens of videos of historians who question their objectivity, I only write what is true, explain to me why you can choose the words that should be put Dericiana (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]