User talk:JimKaatFan

JimKaatFan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JimKaatFan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1960 World Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walk-off (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

George Foreman

Thanks for finding another source for him being ordained, but you were incorrect that the previous source didn't support it. It says He experienced a religious conversion and the following year was ordained at the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in Houston. Schazjmd (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I missed that, I guess. I thought I read through the whole thing and did not see that line. My mistake. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

All is well since you went to the trouble to find another source. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, wasn’t attacking you. No hurtful or divisive language was used. Constructive criticism. Just asking for some help that’s all. As for the edit, which I did concentrate on, how don’t the sources support the material? Have you heard the versions? SpaceFox99 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the video doesn't support the text that was in the article that I removed. The existence of the video only supports one thing - there's a video that exists. That's trivial. If a reliable source had written about the video, saying, in effect, the assertions that I had removed, that would be a reason to include that material. But without that, it's just editors adding their own personal takes on the subject. And that's not what Wikipedia is for. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh and by the way "Your edits are overwhemingly net-negative"[1] isn't constructive criticism. Neither is sarcasm such as "perhaps help people out and find a source, rather than just deleting everything". I delete things that aren't supported by reliable sources. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with Wikipedia, not me. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I think you’ve misinterpreted what I had to say. I do not write sarcastically. Seriously; help us out and try and find a source (perhaps I’m mistaken and you did do this, in which case I’m sorry) instead of just deleting lots. WP:AGF, please. My original comment was really not an attack; only you’d know why you took it as one. This seems to be a common thing on Wikipedia these days; people assume they’re being attacked; this situation was by no means a WP:HUNT. I, at least, am trying to be genuine. The video exists; you do not need a source describing what is in the video of the information reciprocated is as simple as it was. If a photo was taken of a cow, you do not need multiple sources saying “there is a cow in the picture” to verify it’s contents. Moreover, no synthesis has taken place, and therefore the simple information stands. Further, I gave references other than the video. I cited the multiple versions on discogs, and for extra reliability, an Australian media archive website, listing the multiple versions. The actual subject + reference source + reliable source. I do not have a problem with you. Thank you for the valuable time you spend trying to help Wikipedia; maybe try and make that time even more valuable! Thanks again, have a good day! SpaceFox99 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Your edits are overwhemingly net-negative" is an attack. "perhaps help people out and find a source, rather than just deleting everything" is sarcasm. Just because you come to my page later and try to say "oh no, I wasn't really attacking you, why are you so offended?" doesn't make those things any less true. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Sigh)... they weren't an attack. Most of your edits are negative - who said that's a bad thing? Just means maybe you could help the problem? (not an attack). I did not use irony to mock you through sarcasm; no irony is there. The intent was genuine. Don't know why you would think otherwise. I repeat what I sad above... As for the actual page, I've provided the reasons as to why my edits were proper. SpaceFox99 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I like how I explained that, after attacking me, you came here afterwards and claim your words weren't an attack, and then you proceeded to do the exact same thing again. And added a condescending (Sigh). Stop lying. How about this - stay off my talk page for the rest of eternity. The problems with the material I removed on the article were crystal clear, and if you have a problem with those, address them on the article talk page. Not here. Bye. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Fitch Poole

Hello! I created Fitch Poole's article. He might not be the most notable person, but, it seems to me like he meets the criteria. Perhaps, that's because there isn't much info about him. Thanks! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I'll try to expand his article with some other sources Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to. So far the only sources on there are gravesite directions. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really, there are other sources too Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Really? Name one reliable secondary source in there besides the obits and gravesites. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Jump5

I suggest that you take it to an RfC. I have been blocked many times because I have edited many times. If you ever conflate the two again, I will take you to ANI for making unfounded personal attacks. The two do not follow from each other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"I have been blocked many times because I have edited many times" hmmm I don't think those two follow each other :) JimKaatFan (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Hi. Have you ever read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? It's one of the best ways to reach consensus and is good editing behavior. When someone disagrees with a change you'd like to make, instead of reverting, the best practice is to discuss the issue. Please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? The part where it says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." If I were lazy, and I was just removing things without checking to see if they're sourced, then that would be wrong, and a "citation needed" should be added instead, fine. But I am actually taking the time to see if there's any material available to verify what the material claims. In this case, there isn't any. As I said before, if there's a reliable source somewhere, then sure, re-add the opinion that was in the article before.

It might also interest you to know that the material was added years ago without a source, here. In fact, the entire paragraph was added unsourced, mainly the product of the editor's brain that wrote it. So I'm inclined to remove the whole thing - after I look for sources for the rest of it, of course. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1989 World Ice Hockey Championships

I am now on the fence over whether the mention about the European Championship format belongs as a small note or if it belongs at all after looking a lot closer at things. The European Championships used to have content on the main World Championship page but that is going back at least ten years, don't know why it is not mentioned at all. If you want to know more I would suggest German Wikipedia as there was much more interest in the European Championships there.18abruce (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I found a real source for the main European Championship article: this book. I have a copy, it's pretty comprehensive. If you want a copy, I can email it to you. I just thought that would be better than some personal webpage that went defunct. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It is definitely better, I would welcome a copy of that for sure. One problem that could use some better sourcing, which I was going to fix several years ago and then forgot, is the 1966 championships. They were retroactively changed at some point in the late 80's or early 90's. Müller's book touches on it, and I know a retired user had some more details, but I can't remember exactly. I am overwhelmed with distance learning for special needs kids right now and do not foresee spending much time online other that for awhile. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

LILCO vs Trio Grande

Came across the discussion you posted at Talk:List of ice hockey line nicknames from the link at WikiProject Ice Hockey. I've been working intermittently this week on overhauling the dog's breakfast that was the Mike Bossy article, so the names of the lines have been pretty fresh from my online searches, so I redid those two lines with contemporary sources. The SI source that misnamed the LILCO members was weird, but was from decades later, when hindsight seems to be fuzzy. Harris was a big deal until Bossy came along, and I was a kid on Long Island (and a Rangers fan) when this was happening! Echoedmyron (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely included Billy Harris, look here for example. That card set has several "lines" but probably would need further verification maybe.18abruce (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I took a look, looks good. I was trying to clean up the entire article (and it was a mess), it took a lot longer than I thought it would, so that particular line, I think I found that one article that had both line nicknames for the same three guys, so I just collapsed it into one entry. Glad you found better sourcing than I did, and waaaay better sourcing than was there before. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Henry_Masterson_III shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your most recent revert is in violation of WP:3RR and now against the consensus that you so demanded. I would highly recommend undoing your revert. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This was you canvassing, in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing, in order to get a favorable "third opinion". Then the person you recruited to weigh in became part of a Wikipedia:Tag team in order to circumvent the rules on edit warring. So you'll forgive me if I disregard this notice as what it is: a blatant attempt to bully me into removing a completely valid template. Don't harass me here any further, please, thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

just a thought

some of your disputes in the basketball pages seem familiar. the tone of the ip is familiar as well. Specifically the way sources are used, or to be accurate, misused. And some of the expressions used are the same. It may be worth your while to check into sock puppets of User:Max Arosev, appears likely to me but I have been wrong about this before at least once.18abruce (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I do that? JimKaatFan (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like Djsasso took care of it. Thanks for pointing it out. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is one editor who just will not go away, and is sometimes correct. There are other banned users who come back but learn how to stay under the radar, this one invites confrontation for some reason. Rather frustrating but Djsasso has always been good about stepping in.18abruce (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)

Hi! Your last edition of this page is not correct: the world in which the game takes place is really a cube (six faces). On the same page, in the Development section, this is said as indicated by the game developer and, naturally, by the players. The link to the Youtube video is not to confirm this fact but to view it. I request that you undo the edit. Thanks! JoaquinFerrero (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that this was in the Development section as something the game author envisioned, but that's unsourced there as well. I searched for a source that mentioned "cubic world" or "cube world" in relation to this game and could not find one. Do you know of one? JimKaatFan (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I missed it the first read because he doesn't say "cubic world" in the interview. So I adjusted the text in the body. Also, since it's not even clear that he accomplished that goal, or what he even means by the term, I don't think it's accurate to describe the game that way in the lead. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I also found the category that this game most closely resembles: a flip-screen game, albeit a confusing variant of such games, given the difficulty players had navigating the world. I'm going to try and see if any sources mention this genre. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Amerigo Vespucci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Florentine

Nicolás Mascardi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ligurian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Go block yourself. I'm adding sourced content and you are reverting it because of your political bias. Friendlygoris (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)