User talk:Sunshineisles2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction

Hello! This is the best place to contact me on this site. Drop me a line and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. You might notice that this page is a lot more blank than it was before. I just archived the last six years of discussion. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Um... OK, thanks? I am aware of edit summaries, and I use them quite frequently. I thought I left a summary on the Roper edit, but for some reason it didn't show, if that's what you're all worked up about.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

All worked up? What are you referring to? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Links to New York

Pursuant to the consensus reached in the discussion at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links, all links to the state of New York are to be piped through New York (state) until all erroneous links are repaired. To date we have fixed over 18,000 errors in this way, and would like to finish the rest without disruption to the effort. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I became aware of this resolution only after leaving the note. Thanks for letting me know anyway. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we're on the same page. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sunshineisles2. 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)

Your GA nomination of Roger Ebert

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roger Ebert you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roger Ebert

The article Roger Ebert 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:Roger Ebert for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roger Ebert

The article Roger Ebert you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roger Ebert for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warrior Sleyece

Sleyece is edit warring like crazy at Edith Wilson. Do you think we ought to report him to WP: Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring? I dislike doing that kind of thing but this guy's getting to be a royal pain. Motsebboh (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Motsebboh:I was going to say no, but considering the fact that Sleyece actually just came on my page and deleted your message in an attempt to prevent me from seeing it, that may be an option to keep on the table in the near future. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice he just came off a suspension for edit warring. He seems to have a habit of erasing stuff he doesn't like, whether it's on an article, his own talk page, or someone else's. Motsebboh (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, he has a history of this? Interesting. Yeah, I've stepped back from the Wilson page, because I don't like to waste my time on petty internet fights, but you're right in saying that this is definitely getting ridiculous. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and there are other odd things too. such as him Thanking me for an edit that he then erases, and making edit comments that his are OFFICIAL EDITS, not to be undone. Motsebboh (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That is incredibly peculiar. I think we definitely should consider launching some kind of action.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the action. I'll add something before the day is out I'm sure. Motsebboh (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop spamming reports and ganging up on me. This is nonsense. I made one edit, and you are abusing the report system. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you literally just attempted to pre-emptively abort a discussion by flat-out deleting the complaint lodged on the admin edit-war board. You really don't have room to talk about "abusing the report system." Every page has an edit history, and it's public knowledge who edited what page, when they did it, and what they did. One can also restore any old edit. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

STOP. You have been counter-reported. Please stop harassment. I feel abused by you --User:Sleyece (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of your so-called "counter-report," and will freely participate in any deliberation that may come in the process. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

As co-conspirator in abuse and harassment Motsebboh has also been reported. I don't feel safe making "bold" edits." --Sleyece (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Any complaints you file against another user should be handled among you, them, and the admins which preside over the case. I'm not sure what else you want me to do here.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You are involved. I also posted on the other user's page. The two of you are plotting against me, I harassing me. STOP. I feel unsafe. --Sleyece (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not sure what else to tell you at this stage.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That was weird. You were admirably restrained in dealing with this poor guy. I see that he was doing the same stuff at Dick Cheney and has been understandably bounced out. Motsebboh (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was definitely one of the most peculiar interactions that I've had in the ~7 years I've been a user on this site. In any case, it looks like it's over now. Thanks for your assistance, and the compliment. Hope to see you around! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Your change to United States Secretary of Defense

Hello Sunshineisles2,

I am new to talk pages so please let me know if this is the right place for this kind of commentary and discussion.

Sec. Mattis was sworn in on January 28, 2017. So why should that not be the date he was sworn in on the Wikipedia page?

I understand he was nominated earlier but he did not get sworn in until the 28th which means he was not Secretary until the 28th, to my understanding. Can you please share why you believe this is not true?

Thank you,

To4evr To4evr (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@To4evr: I'm not quite sure about that procedure, but this WaPo article states that Mattis was sworn in by Pence on January 20, shortly after his Senate confirmation. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sunshineisles2: Thank you for that source. Do you think it is necessary to include that source in the article to get rid of any confusion? As well, do you know what event happened today? Since I thought he was sworn in today (Jan 28). To4evr (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@To4evr: I don't know what happened today, I'm afraid. Perhaps some kind of ceremonial thing. However, the WP reference is already in the article, and that's where I found it.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sunshineisles2: Thank you for clarifying. Keep up your good work! To4evr (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@To4evr: Thanks, same to you! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle

Is that what it's designed for - reverting "good faith" edits? Really? FFS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah? It says “ROLLBACK: AGF” as a distinctly separate category. It retrospectively wasn’t an entirely necessary edit, but my methodology was sound. What’s your point? —Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sunshineisles2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Timothée Chalamet

I understand the guidelines. You should do the same then, to fellow Columbia alumni, Jake Gyllenhaal. That alma mater never goes away, and he never graduated either.

It's another page, and if it's been decided to be as such, then there's no reason for it not to be there. If you think Chalamet's infobox should be treated the same way, then you can have that discussion on his article's talk page. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Jessica Falkholt. We must have a source before reporting on someone's death. It cannot simply be added. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't add as much as I could have, I was on mobile at the time. I learned of the news from a news.com.au ref on the recent death article, so that should be added, yes. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem: someone has just added a link so it's in there. Just for future reference remember never to comment on the recent death of someone unless you can cite it to a reliable source in the edit you add the information. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll give your comments and suggestions the consideration they do merit, but frankly, in almost 10 years of editing, I can't recall ever having edited in information about a death on an article where there wasn't already a source, so considering the speed with which these things occur, I find the likelihood if this happening regularly to be unlikely. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Living former governors

What is the utility of this section? --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Golbez: If you take issue with the utility of a living former governor subsection, then you'd have to remove it off the governor list for just about all 50 states. It's a simple way to contextualize the history of the office: objective, easy to maintain, and easily accessible. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am, methodically, preferably as each goes through FL. See Alabama, Arkansas, etc. I am exceedingly familiar and involved with these articles. And I don't know if it contextualizes anything, one state having 6 alive is no different from another having 1, etc. For that slim number of people who need to know, the info is extremely easy to synthesize. --Golbez (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for sharing your views and your actions. I don't know why you felt I needed to know your credentials on these articles before specifying your position, but in any case, thanks for stopping by! I would go around and try to seek a concrete consensus on removing the lists before adjusting 50 articles, just to avoid any headaches down the line, but if it is as uncontroversial as you say, then probably not. (It does seem that similar lists exist on the pages for most, if not all, 435 congressional districts, which means that at some point, a significant number of editors had to consider them good ideas.)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it felt like you were talking down to me - instead of answering the question about the utility, you implied that it didn't matter, that it didn't need justification if it's already on articles. I apologize for being snippy.

As for your statement that "most, if not all" have them, I threw in a few random ones. CO 2: List last touched in 2015. IA 2: Last touched in 2015. VA 9: No list. MN 1: No list. TX 15: no list. DE AL: Last touched in Jan 2017. HI 2: No list. So ... unless this random sampling is unexpectedly non-representational, it doesn't seem in fact that a "significant number" of editors considered them good ideas, or even considered them at all. And a lot can change in article preferences in a few years. Finally, those aren't governor lists. They're done in a completely different way, so it's not the most useful to equate them. --Golbez (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I don't know what you want me to do about this, but I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I think we've strayed far enough away from the subject at hand here that this conversation is effectively exhausted, anyway. Thanks again! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sunshineisles2

Hello, I'm User:Reehdelrey, I saw that you deleted content from the Matt Bomer page, I wanted to know why? I've been working on this page for some time. It has no unreliable source. And if the problem is the grammar you could try to arrange not to delete the content. Reehdelrey (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reehdelrey: Hello. My concern when streamlining the section was that some of the content, particularly pertaining to Bomer's high school education/early theater experience, was redundant (i.e. a picture of his high school and at least two textual mentions of it). Additionally, some factoids, like the claim of his and Justin Timberlake's common ancestor, were sourced from the IMDb, which, according to WP:CITEIMDB, is not an appropriate use of the website. If such information cannot be reliably sourced, WP:BLP policy is very unambiguous that such information must be removed immediately. (Like Wikipedia, information on the IMDb is user-maintained and subject to constant change, which means it is not appropriate for inclusion here.) I hope that answers some of your concerns! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kyle Patrick Alvarez has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kyle Patrick Alvarez. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle Patrick Alvarez has been accepted

Kyle Patrick Alvarez, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced release dates

When changing a film's release date, as you did in this edit, please include a citation that backs up your change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

April 2022

Your edit on smith-rock incident and the sentence: "Audience members and television viewers were shocked by the slapping incident and some wondered if the event had been a publicity stunt. The uncensored video footage...". The reference to "uncensored video" in the sentence after the one you just reverted does not make sense without the comment on the muted audio which I had added. Do you have a fix which works to explain the reference to "uncensored video" in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see the current revision of the page. I have added context. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Elections Task Force

Hi Sunshineisles2,

I'm looking at starting a task force of Wikipedia editors to work on the pages of candidates up for election in 2022. Many congressional member pages have very few votes or political positions (for example, compare Michelle Steel and Steve Chabot against Nicole Malliotakis), and so I think it would be a great resource for us to flesh out a lot of these pages ahead of the election to better support people who come to Wikipedia for information before they vote.

I see you've been active on a couple of congressperson pages recently so thought you might be interested. If you are, please message me on my talk page. Once I have a couple of interested editors I will work on building a task force page so we can coordinate our work. No worries at all if you're not interested or too busy. Thanks for everything you do for the Wikipedia communtiy!

Wildfire35 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)