User talk:PuppyMonkey/Archive 1

Archive 1

December 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Puppy Monkey Baby have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Puppy Monkey Baby was changed by PuppyMonkey (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.89878 on 2022-12-18T00:31:06+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, ClueBot, but I believe you have made an error. PuppyMonkey (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at OneTaste, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I will review the guidelines you linked however it is very difficult to find good sources to an organization like OneTaste, especially now that it is defunct. PuppyMonkey (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Upon further review, the only things I added are sourced in the article already. Both the location of the founding and the practice itself. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to OneTaste. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not add the external links to the article @Sundayclose. I moved them to an external links section where they would be more appropriate. Now you have reverted them back to being within the text of the article and that is even more promotional. PuppyMonkey (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually what you did here was remove appropriate citations. There was nothing "inappropriate" about the location of the citations. Citations belong with the content that they support, not in the external links section. So I gave you an incorrect warning; it should have been for removing content. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove any citations. I do not know what you are saying. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Again here, you removed citations to https://instituteofom.com and https://unconditionalfreedom.org/unconditional-freedom-project. I restored the citations and removed your move to the External links. Don't tell me you didn't make the edit. I'm finished here. I'm not going to quibble with you about something that is as obvious as the nose on your face. If you make similar edits again you'll get a level 3 warning. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You can see as plainly as I can that those links were not citations, they were direct links. My only mistake was moving them to the external links section rather than turning them into citations. Why are you even bothering to get aggravated and threaten me over a good faith edit based on a Template:advert placed at the top of an article? This is obviously quibbling and worthless of both our time. I would suggest you to read WP:faith because I think you assumed I was trying to make the article more promotional rather than less promotional. How do you think it feels to have your edit misconstrued to the extent that it is the complete opposite of your intent? PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Read very carefully because I'm not responding any more after this message. Placing a link in brackets is an acceptable means for making citations. It may not be your preferred method of citing, but other editors don't have to respect your personal preferences as long as they don't violate a policy READ WP:CITE. And note carefully that "not recommended" does not mean "forbidden". And especially carefully read this sentence: "Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations." If you want to change which citation methods are permitted, argue it at WT:CITE, not here with me. Now, if you want to talk to yourself by continuing this useless discussion, feel free. But I won't be reading it because I have far more important things to do. Don't ping me or message me about this. Sundayclose (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's done. And Internet communication is far from perfect. They are not the best citations as far as sources (being the official websites). But it was not my intention to REVERT or REMOVE them. I saw them as SPAM and wanted to move them out of the article. That is all. PuppyMonkey (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not spam. And spam doesn't go in External links

I said I wasn't going to respond, but you really need to learn a few things before continuing to edit, so for the sake of protecting Wikipedia, here it is. You don't remove a citation because you think it's "not the best citation". You ask for a better citation. And linking to a website for the purpose of verifying an edit is not spam, even if a better citation is needed. And finally, if you think something is spam (and this wasn't spam), you don't put it is in External links. Adding spam to External links is a policy violation. Now, I'm finished, even if you continue making statements that fly in the face of policy. By the way, if you remove warnings, they don't go away. They're still in the history of this talk page. Removing them is evidence that you read them. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't remove a citation because you think it's "not the best citation".

Okay. I wouldn't remove a citation if I thought it was a real citation.

And linking to a website for the purpose of verifying an edit is not spam,

It is if the linked website can't be verified.

if you think something is spam, don't put it in External links.

Okay, so I will remove spam and bring it up on the talk page?

continue making statements that fly in the face of policy.

I understand the importance of having a policy and I will read some of your links.

if you remove warnings, they don't go away.

I'm not trying to remove them, they are just done and ready to be archived, as you said yourself before.

PuppyMonkey (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And if you want to quote policy, I remembered this "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." which is what I was trying to remedy. PuppyMonkey (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

If you're interested in improving medicine-related articles, then a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and you're welcome to join us. We just started a casual contest around adding sources to articles, and you can also sign up on the Outreach dashboard if you'd like to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Hey thanks for the tips. I'll take a look at the project page. Sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. I think it is important to stay up-to-date with the latest medical and health information. Having good sources is part of that. PuppyMonkey (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We've written a long advice page on finding sources at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It's maybe a bit of preaching to the choir, but it's still useful sometimes. You can find a source that claims just about anything cures cancer in a petri dish, which isn't really the same thing as curing cancer. I think Wikipedia is far better off sticking to the solid sources that sum up good research, even if it means we don't swallow every over-hyped "discovery" that appears in the news one day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Plot hole. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to The Last of Us (TV series), please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Thanks for delivering the message respectfully. I will try not to clog up the History. I'm thinking that maybe I could copy a section to Draft space and work on minor edits there and then copy that section back to Main space at the end. PuppyMonkey (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft space is not for that, as far as I know. Use your sandbox. Get sandbox help here. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, I really haven't ever used the sandbox. I'll check it out. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm just linking the page on Wikipedia:Drafts. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

February 20

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ben Shapiro, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Srey Sros^talk 20:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February 25

Please stop micro-analyzing articles and making unnecessary changes that are not improvements simply because you prefer them. You're creating extra work for other editors. Thank you. Stoarm (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll work on what are improvements and what aren't. Thanks for the note and keeping it civil. PuppyMonkey (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, Please stop what are essentially nit-picky edits of articles that do nothing to improve content that is already very well written. You may prefer different wording and feel that all the added detail is better, but it's diminishing the quality of articles. Don't change the recipe if the cookies are already really delicious and there aren't other significant problems. And please be careful of violating WP:OR. Stoarm (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You know, I respect your care for Wikipedia. And appreciate that you didn't get overly dramatic about the whole thing. Checking back from a little WP:BREAK myself, I don't mean to be patronizing here but just give advice that works for me. If you're getting really frustrated it helps just to take a breath and step back for a minute. Some of the 'nit picks' I can verifiably defend and improve the article, however minor. But reviewing what you've seen fit to WP:REVERT I can see how some parts are unnecessary or even diminish the quality of the article. What I've been working on for a while is seeing that different editors have different styles of writing and use of grammar that is correct but varies. Anyway, keep learning and using Wiki, just remember I care about the project too and WP:GOODFAITH. PuppyMonkey (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that another editor, Alex 21, has given you the same feedback you've heard from me. What you're doing is making things more difficult for other editors. Stoarm (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your edit at Scott Adams was a significant BLP violation. Please do not insert your political opinions through the use of improperly used wikilinks that are obviously out-of-context to the relevant content. Stoarm (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's beneficial to reply to these or not, but I feel obligated to because the slant of the message is so damning. For the record, I try to abide by the WP:NPOV guidelines. I was not trying to insert a political opinion, I was just trying to link to a relevant social phenomenon. I'm not even sure which side of the opinion I was perceived to fall on. PuppyMonkey (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, please be aware that 2023 Nashville school shooting is under a WP:CRP restriction which states that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Cult scale" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cult scale has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 20 § Cult scale until a consensus is reached. Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)