User talk:Etzedek24

Barnstar

		The WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the Weidner Center For The Performing Arts article! -- Dolotta (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Giovanni Gentile

Just a heads-up about the Rfc you started at Giovanni Gentile. Normally, there needs to be discussion at an article's Talk page before initiating an Rfc, and just wanted you to know that I listed it at WP:AN/RFC to get some feedback about that point. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I responded to your reliable source issue at Talk:Giovanni Gentile#Gentile = not a socialist. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack Kirby

The article Jack Kirby you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jack Kirby for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How not to use Wikipedia

Please stay off my talk page in the future, thanks. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Magnacartalibertatum: Your talk page is a public space. If you don't want warnings posted on there, don't vandalize articles. It's really that simple. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 16:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Pacific Justice Institute

PJI is a legal organization so it naturally contains summaries of court cases. You removed this well sourced content and replaced it with trivia from a biased source. That is not how Wikipedia works. Not in the slightest. – Lionel^(talk) 09:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: The page's sourcing was a joke. Not only did many of the sources not match up with the prose they were cited in context of (for example, only including PJI on a list with no other context), but many of the sources, especially with the indiscriminate listing of cases (which contained non-NPOV phrasing) only mentioned the PJI in a passing context as well. To efface the PJI's history of virulent anti-LGBT campaigning, to which it devotes much time and energy, especially when the bulk of the "biased sources" I cited came from newspapers and the PJI's website itself, is unacceptable. Perhaps there is some middle ground to be found, but the article in its previous state falls far short of Wikipedia standards concerning hate groups. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 16:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "sources not match up with the prose they were cited": I checked half of the article and the sources state that PJI represented a litigant in the particular legal matter. Sourcing is verified per WP:VERIFY.
• "indiscriminate listing of cases...only mentioned the PJI in a passing context": in a legal article when an attorney represents a litigant the entire case, as well as its precedents if any, becomes relevant for the article of the attorney. Since PJI represented the litigant, that makes the case relevant to this article, thus not indiscriminate. For an example of how representing a litigant makes the case relevant see Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Notable_cases.
• "To efface the PJI's history of virulent anti-LGBT campaigning": PJI was founded 20 years ago and most of their casework is based on First Amendment and religious freedom issue such as prayer in schools, In God We Trust, proselytizing, Christian Bible clubs at public schools, etc. You cited UNDUE. Ironically, for the article to be DUE, this work with regards to the First Amendment and religious freedom must be covered in the article. In other words, your blanking of the article created inbalance. Your statement "devotes much time and energy" is let's just say an exaggeration.
• " falls far short of Wikipedia standards concerning hate groups": Wikipedia has no "standards" concerning hate groups. In any event PJI is a well established Christian legal advocacy group. The closest example is ironically SPLC. The listing of cases in PJI is analogous to this Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Notable_cases.
• Your comments and behavior betray your bias and POV. Such as removing the LA Times and replacing it with Youtube. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or to push an LGBT agenda? WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Because if you are here to WP:NOTADVOCATE then you will probably be topic banned.– Lionel^(talk) 10:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Pacific Justice Institute, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Removing high-quality, verified sources such as Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Post is disruptive.– Lionel^(talk) 10:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, I'm Sabbatino. Your recent edit to the page Template:Milwaukee Bucks roster appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Strasserism

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR/AfC

Hi Etzedek24,

I see you were turned down by Kudpung for the NPR user right, I'd suggest heading over to WP:Articles for deletion and over to WP:Requested moves and participating in some discussions to gain experience and learn policies for a while before applying again. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I'm not sure if this will impact your decision, but I'd like to mention that Kudpung reversed their decision and granted me NPP rights after conversing. I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of policies thus far. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 01:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All good, I'd still recommend spending a bit of time at both places though. Good luck and thanks for joining the project. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, see below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Etzedek24. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group (probationary 3 months), allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this eligible for deletion?

Is this eligible for deletion? User:Strawberrian/sandbox Strawberrian (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Strawberrian, you have posted your sandbox link. That cannot be deleted. However, your Susumu Matsuura page did not credibly indicate the subject's notability and read more like a resume than an encyclopedic entry, thus, it was deleted. --Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:DeadpoolvGambit1.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Boy from Tandale

Hello Etzedek24, thanks for accepting my first article on the English Wikipedia. I'm truly humbled to see my contributions are being taken quite serious with you. Til next time, stay blessed!--Muddyb (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy"

Dear Edzedek24 — I am aware of the added responsibility associated with COI editing, and it is true that 10 out of my 15 inline references are self-published - however, the rest are reliable third-party references, and they do meet WP:RS. (I listed some of them when I responded to the last declination, but Bradv did not answer my response, and has since then deleted it.) The following supporting remarks are meant to go with the three "best known for" items in my introduction:

• In reference to the “Poisson surprise” test: Cotterill and Eglen (Cambridge University), in a recent paper in Journal of Neurophysiology (my ref. 13) write, in part:

“ . . . the Poisson surprise method [of Legéndy and Salcman, 1985] is one of the most widely used burst detection methods since its development over thirty years ago (398 citations as of June 2018) and is still commonly used for analysing bursting activity . . .” 

• In reference to the brain capacity estimation: Donald Hebb, a well-known contributor to psychology and neuroscience (with two Wikipedia articles devoted to him), cites the Legéndy (1967) brain capacity estimate in a 1976 paper (my ref. 6), right up-front in the Introduction.
• In regard to helicons: my contributions are incorporated in the Wikipedia article on helicons.

OAKS222 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me. However, I still stand by my declination. I reviewed the page a second time, and agree with Bradv. This article is at the intersection of several highly scrutinized areas, including WP:COI and WP:BLP. The sources on the page itself, as before, do not credibly indicate notability due to the overwhelming level of non-independence of the sources. Hence the much higher level of scrutiny. The article needs more verifiable third-party references. Sorry, but not now. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt answer, and also for reviewing the page a second time. However - I still don’t understand: Why you say that (for instance) my Cotterill and Eglen (2018) reference is a non-independent source? I never even heard of these two guys until I saw their article - and both the journal (J. Neurophysiol.) and the affiliation of the authors (University of Cambridge) are highly respectable. OAKS222 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Drafts

Do you think that moving these articles that I have made to drafts actually help them get better? Moving them to drafts does nothing but make less people aware of them and less accessible. Unless you intend to fix them all by yourself.★Trekker (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: Trek, I appreciate the good work and dedication you have to your work on here, but you have a pattern of leaving incomplete articles up that isn't acceptable. Since I think you're referring to this article, it was off mainspace for about a day, maybe not even that, and it's much improved for it. It's nothing personal, I think moving these articles that have incomplete or empty sections to drafts helps ensure a better end product. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Since when do you need to make a perfect article each time? You can make stubs if you feel like it as long as the subject is notable. This is how I like to work, I work in periods of spurts, it's part of my ADHD, if you don't like it you can add to the article, how does it conceivably ever help to remove a subject from the mainspace? I don't buy that the way you like to do thing helpp in the mildest, in the case of the Jessica Jones article you even removed a bunch of stuff I had on each individual issue for no good reason. It's the same thing as the Punsiehr article, how does it ever help to remove a bunch of sources. Makes. No. Sense. You say it isn't personal but you still clearly go around and follow my articles and say they're bad and remove them from mainspace for weird and poor reasons that as far as I know are just based on your own feelings on them. Again, are you going to fix every single one of them and make sure to put them back? And by what personal standard do you judge them to be "complete" Would it be better if I just ignored to put in the sections at all? Do you remove all stubs you see?★Trekker (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I respect where you come from, but you can't proffer your disability as an excuse for poor conduct. It's one thing to leave stubs up--that's not what the issue is here. I'm talking about articles that are legitimately incomplete--like with headings with no text underneath. If that's how you prefer to work, fine, I can't stop you. But if you're going to put articles together and leave them unfinished, you should really do that in draftspace. As a side note, I'm not a fan of the way you talk about articles that you have contributed greatly to. You're a fairly experienced editor, so I feel that I shouldn't have to say that you don't own your articles. I also resent the accusation that this is personal--that's ludicrous. I improve articles as I find them. In this case, I was doing article assessments for WP:COMICS and came across the articles. None of this is malicious. If I put an article in draftspace, it shoots up the priority list for improving. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, with the JJ article, you hadn't edited it since October of last year, and it was in dire need of updating in any case. If you want to put the table of issue reception in, again I can't stop you. I just think that long tables creep into indiscriminate list territory. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not using my ADHD as an excuse, it's just an explanation. And it's not much of a disability by the way, my mind just works differently and I wouldn't be able to do a lot of stuff I enjoy if I didn't have that.

And I don't have own issues, I have an issue with people straight up just removing stuff from the site and putting them in limbo for no good reason completly based on their own feelings. Can you cite some guidelines that says that it's wrong to work on articles the way I like to? If not the I'd advice you to quit doing that because it just makes the encyclopedia lesser and makes fewer people aware of the content. And again, how is putting the articles into draft space better than just working on them in mainspace? You still havn't explained that to me in any good way. How do more people get the chance to work on an article that's tucked away in the sites hidden depts that almost no one ever visits?

I also never accused you of being malicious (I think most of the time you've been nice to me, if a bit dismissive of my ways) just that you clearly don't respect the way I like to do things based on your own POV and that you self-admited that you think that I "have a pattern" that you've kept track off. It's clear that you have a bias against how I edit and I'd like to see some motivation for that beyond the fact that you think it looks ugly and incomplete, all articles are works in progress and beyond the fact that there are some empty headings sometimes where is the big harm? Where is the guideline that says that it's ok move a bunch of obviously notable subjects away from the mainspace and just leave them there (again, unless you intend to fix all of them yourself you're essentially leaving them in the hopes that someone will one day take an interest in them). All it does it make me potentially forget about them because I keep track of articles by checking navboxes and categories and searching for them in the searchbar, something which can't be done with drafts, I'm sure tons of other people find articles that way too, as a matter of fact I think most people do, so again how does putting them into limbo like that make people more likely to find them and improve them? Tons of drafts stay drafts for years and years.

I just don't see the logic in how the articles are different from stubs. That makes less than zero sense to me, why don't you just remove the heading if they bother you and you think a full stub would be better? I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off as obtuse but I just don't grasp why it would be better to draftify them since I rarely see any of the drafts that I've come across get worked on.

As far as the JJ article goes, there is no timelimit on Wikipedia, and the stuff that you added could have just been added while it was an article so why not just do that? And the fact that you keep saying "keep doing that if you want to, I can't stop you" just makes a good case for the fact that you don't really think very highly of any of the work that I do, even if you claim you "appreciate it". In the end this comes of (to me at least) as an example of one editor thinking they know the only right way and trying to force that without anyone asking them to. You're pretty much the only person I've come across that's taken such an issue to the content I've added and felt they needed to be hidden away until you or someone likeminded could fix it in the style that you like. Much like you said to me, I'm not going to try to hinder you form turning more articles into drafts but I don't like it and I don't see the benefits from it. Again, sorry if my work looks that bad to you and I hope my future work won't be as bothersome, but I can't change how I function and I'm not about to give up the joy I get from editing Wikipedia my way, and I really don't see the harm in it so unless more people feel I'm being disruptive or am having a negative impact I think I'll go on to do things the way I work. I don't agree that what I'm going is poor conduct.★Trekker (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that I can succinctly say the following: Personally (from new page reviewing), if an article is incomplete (by which I mean large swathes of blank content, not a stub), I move it to draft first. That's a good way of getting half-finished stuff outside of the mainspace as well as seeing if someone really cares about the article that they will work on it and improve it. It's not saying "this is bad and has to go to AfC," it's just an easy way to keep track of stuff that needs to be touched up. I also move stuff to draft because I may not have the energy or time at the present moment to improve it, but I will when I do have the time as I did at JJ. I also am sure to tag stuff I move with the comics WP draft class so that I can keep track of it that way as well. I wouldn't say that I "keep track" of your edits, but like I said you do have a habit of leaving poorly-formatted tables and blank sections in articles. That's different than a stub that is just lacking information in general. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

None of my tables are ever poorly formated, at the worst they're not all filled out. And again, I don't feel like you've done a good job at adressing my points very well. You've yet to explain to me how putting somehting in a draft really helps it at all, you keep saying it does but none of your claims combat my concerns.★Trekker (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've said it a bunch of times: Moving incomplete articles to draft is common procedure. It gets incomplete articles out of mainspace, provides an easy way of tracking articles to improve, and shows which articles have editors that care about them and want to improve them. As per the table comment, see the table I removed from the JJ article. The columns are far too wide for the amount of text that is put in them and it disrupts the structure of the article. That's what I mean by poorly formatted. Not filled out is different--that's easier to manage. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Medusa (DC Comics)

Hey there! I noticed you put a citation-improvement banner on the page Medusa (DC Comics) which I edit regularly... is there a reason for that? I've put references from each of her comics appearances and the page currently has 22 references. I'd love more information on what you're looking for in terms of citation. :) Thanks! Nyssie (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nyssane: I'll give it a once over again and see what I remember--I think it was the Other versions/In other media sections that I was referring to. Cheers, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

FoldingCoin

Hi there. we are trying our best to write this in a way that is not promotional, we simply want a page. Can you please explain exactly what is wrong with the page? or what should we do to get this approved? - Pooktwo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooktwo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You want to talk to Bbb23 as they were the admin who deleted the page. However, I will say that you cannot "simply have a page," your organization or product must meet notability guidelines as laid out here, here, and here. If the page does not meet those guidelines, as it's done twice, (for copyright, unambiguous promotion, and no indication of significance), then the page will be deleted again. Cheers, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)