User talk:Sundayclose/Archive January 2020 through August 2020

Good to see you back

Welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

yay! It's really good to see you back! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't understand your edit on your talkpage. You removed "not around" with an edit summary "I'm back now that I am retired". Are you retiring from Wikipedia or did you retire in real life? Also this —usernamekiran (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm good at confusing people! I am retired from work in real life (mostly), which means I may have a bit more time for Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sitar

An ip and a user (NavjotSR) is removing sourced content from the article Sitar please undo two recent edits made by them 2405:204:109C:E828:912A:3D8F:5283:596 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

yay! It's really good to see you back! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't understand your edit on your talkpage. You removed "not around" with an edit summary "I'm back now that I am retired". Are you retiring from Wikipedia or did you retire in real life? Also this —usernamekiran (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm good at confusing people! I am retired from work in real life (mostly), which means I may have a bit more time for Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

For thanking me

You're welcome! It was my duty to remove vandalism by block evaders. -- JavaHurricane 15:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Thank you for your detailed explanation about the removal of my text added to ADHD article. As I am new to this, I understand that a citation was missing and therefor you removed it. The text added was taken from a book titled :"Education and Alternative Treatment for ADHD" from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07HZMTWYP/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2

Please let me know if I can re-add the text with the reference to this book? Thanks Gudarticle (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gudarticle: The medical community is very active on Wikipedia, and sourcing is generally at a higher standard for medical articles than other articles. Carefully read WP:MEDRS. Briefly, biomedical journals (with a preference for review articles) and high quality medical textbooks are needed. The book you link doesn't appear to meet that standard. Although I haven't read it, it appears to be written by a physicist about his work with his own son. I'm sure it cites a range of information, but I doubt that it gives a balanced perspective on the entirety of ADHD medical research. But I am only presenting my opinion. If you want opinions from a broader representation of the Wikipedia medical community, feel free to discuss at WT:WikiProject Medicine. Best of luck! Sundayclose (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding pictures

Thank you for your comment.
As I am new to this I really don't understand what is the problem with my 2 pictures/photos added.
I have used the Wikipedia automatic uploadwizard. Indicated the source and all other parameters. I would appreciate your help in resolving this issue which may help me in future uploads. Please indicate exactly what parameter should I add/modify. I assumed that using the built-in uploadwizard should be sufficient Thanks Gudarticle (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gudarticle: As I said, images are not my strong point on Wikipedia. You're much better off typing {{Help me}} on your talk page and asking a question about the image. Sundayclose (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

My mistake on that edit

I assure you I didn't mean to delete all that on the Recycling in Japan talk page. But it looks like on my page it does show a large deletion, and that was a mistake. I apologize and will be more careful. I meant just to change one word and update a name but looks like more was deleted than I thought. I will make sure I preview even small changes. Mdus5678 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for posting here - just delete after reading.

Apologies for replying on your personal Talk page as opposed to the original Talk page (as you advise in your instructions) but that doesn’t seem to work for me.

All I wanted to say is that I will “Close” that Lennon & McCartney credit discussion on the “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” Talk page, and introduce the topic on the appropriate page (a broader Beatles forum) which I was kindly directed to.

I read your comment as well as those of JG66, but I never get a “Reply” text-box whereby I can respond.

I responded via editing the raw HTML and made each of your usernames hyperlinks, but even that didn’t seem to work.

So just delete this from your Talk page after reading.

My understanding is that once a discussion has been replied to, it can’t be “Redacted”, so the next best thing is simply to “Close” it. It doesn’t belong on that page anyway.

And FYI, my “shouty” and angry comments every time my edit was reverted were the result of me not seeing the reason it was repeatedly reverted - I didn’t see those posts until later, and the first thing I saw was “blathering”.

I’m aware of Wiki’s “3rd party source” policy but I became very frustrated because if the copyright isn’t a legitimate 3rd party source, then I don’t know what is. But I won’t get into that here. I’m just letting you know that no offense was intended.

I did respond on that Talk page, saying essentially what I said here, with a bit more detail, which you can read or not, up to you.

Peace WB (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Misery

Dear Sundayclose,

When I edited the Misery page, saying that it was the T key rather than the R key that broke on Paul Sheldon's Royal typewriter, I had done so for two reasons.

1. I was correcting a mistake I had made in an earlier edit. 2. I had made the edit based on a Hodder Publishing edition of the novel which I am currently reading.

I hope that has cleared things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A412:F00:E0EB:E518:AB89:A9E0 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the recent changes I made.

In regards to my change on the Southern Railway (U.S.) page, I'm just trying to fix an inconsistency with the date as the Southern page (rather redundantly) states 1982 while the Norfolk and Western Railway page states 1997. My grandfather used to work for the company as a clerk during that time period (I also now work for it) and has assured me that the proper date for the dissolution of the company on paper was sometime in the late 90s after all outstanding debts were paid. I think were all better off when the articles are consistent with their information. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlegoguy (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zlegoguy: I'm not questioning your intentions or your grandfather, but Wikipedia policy requires a reliable source, and I'm afraid what your grandfather told you is not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I understand the source policy issue, I'm sure if I hunted around some (online and in corporate archives) I could find a more reliable source, just given the moment I realized this inconsistency he was the quickest person who could at least provide some form of verification. What I'm just trying to point out is that on the two pages I mentioned they both have different dates associated the same piece of information which is misleading. Since neither has a valid source backing them at this moment perhaps both lines regarding the formal dissolution of the N&W should be deleted from their respective pages until a valid source is located.

@Zlegoguy: It's up to you whether you delete something, as long as you're deleting unsourced information. Many people prefer to add {{cn}} (citation needed) rather than remove it. But it's improper to insert unsourced information with the idea of sourcing it later. When that happens, often the source is never added. Sundayclose (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Thanks for the tip! I think for the sake of consistency across those two pages I will delete the lines for now as the original authors of those lines failed to include a proper citation and adding a {{cn}} to two pieces of conflicting information on the same matter may encourage the spread of further misinformation.

That's unconstructive

Why would you re-introduce an obvious factual error? Do you know what a 78rpm record is? Have you ever held one? This is WP:SKYISBLUE to a 78rpm collector, and I have been collecting 78rpm records for 40 years, and have thousands and thousands of them. If you can find me a source that says that 78rpm records are made of vinyl, I'll relent, but record collectors will laugh at your source. Yes, some of Mercury's 78rpm records, the promotional copies are made of vinyl, but those weren't introduced until the mid 1950s and they are not at all common. I ask that you self revert. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Need more? I don't feel adding these sources would help that particular article, and the phonograph record article adequately explains this already. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: I'm 70 years old, so you take a guess as to whether I know what a 78 is. If you can provide sources here, it should be easy to add it to the article. Please do, per WP:V. Wikipedia policies don't provide a special exception for 78 collectors, or anyone for that matter. WP:BLUE is an essay, not a policy. And it certainly doesn't apply to matters that the general population doesn't know, and 78 collectors aren't representative of the general population. WP:V is a policy. It always applies when something is challenged. I'm not trying to be difficult. That's why I put a "citation needed" tag in the article. Feel free to replace it with your citations. All the best. Sundayclose (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim of that sentence is not what material the record is made of. In fact, the cn tag belongs there anyway because the whole section is unsourced. But we don’t add a citation to each word within a sentence. I fixed a factual error. You shouldn’t reintroduce a factual error. 04:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: I placed a cn tag because the issue is in question, per policy. If you disagree or don't want to bother with adding sources, please take it up on the article's talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: Actually, I restored shellac, but it still needs a source. If you don't want to provide a source, maybe someone else will. I usually leave a cn tag up for four or five weeks before reverting. Thanks for raising this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not like either one of us is wrong, but I'm not sure it's in the best interest of the article to make a citation to a source which has nothing to do with the article topic, and which supports a non-controversial claim which has naught to do with the conceit of that sentence. For instance, lets say when writing about a mid 1970s music release a source states "LP record" and to avoid plagiarism an editor writes "vinyl album". Does the fact that it is vinyl need sourcing? No. does the whole sentence need to be cited to the source, yes. I am also a stickler for WP:V, but the link to phonograph record provided the needed context and information for those who now call all phonograph records "vinyls" (shudder). A couple things strike me. First, I need to actually start an article on 78rpm records (or more precisely, high-speed phonograph discs) records. The second is, since we've been arguing over a point that doesn't help the understanding of the topic, why not just remove the durn qualifier entirely, such that it reads "released on 78 RPM records that were in use at the time". There should still be a citation tag at the end of the sentence since that remains unsourced. What do you think? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: I don't have a problem if you remove the qualifier. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained?

Describe your edit summary.[4]

It looks misleading because I had described my edits. You can self revert. 2402:3A80:8FC:D8D0:C06D:55D4:EC9D:D62B (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You removed sourced information without explanation. You have been reverted by two different editors. Continuing to restore it is edit warring, which can result in block from editing. And your English is poor. Sundayclose (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You are either blind or grossly incompetent since you are showing clear failure to recognise that I explained my edits.[5] Find some other way to improve edit count (though it is a useless factor). 2402:3A80:8FC:D8D0:C06D:55D4:EC9D:D62B (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:HARASS and stay off this talk page. If I have to ask you again we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI and you can be blocked from editing. Final warning. Sundayclose (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope

Get over yourself. It's a provocative POV phrase by its nature, and being uncited it's OR which can be removed at any time. And asinine, condescending templates on the IP address talk page aren't convincing. 192.91.173.34 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Read my other comments. And stop making personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Asinine" isn't a personal attack, and it characterizes your actions, not you personally. You are reminding me of why I quit editing Wikipedia over a decade ago in the first place. Your assumption the edit was made in bad faith was your first mistake. There's no other reason for the remarks on the IP page. 192.91.173.34 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a cop out. If I say that you act like a stupid person, that doesn't just describe your actions, it's a personal attack. Please stay off this talk page if you have nothing of any substance to say. Sundayclose (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

College railman

Hi, Sundayclose. First, an aside. The concept of Sunday close, a practice known as blue laws in the US, doesn't always involve alcohol. The sale of automobiles in Michigan is prohibited on Sundays. Always thought that was strange, and doubly so in Michigan, the state probably most associated with the automobile.

Whereas I agree the above user is sloppy, somewhat disruptive and frankly rather strangely focused on his main subjuct choice, I have an issue with you terming several edits of his "vandalism". VANDALISM is pretty specific. Bad faith is an element. The first edits you reverted a couple days ago were simply very poorly done. The ones earlier today were disruptive; but neither of those things are vandalism. He's got a 48 hour timeout for being disruptive now. IMO, he's got an indeff in his future, not for vandalism, but for WP:CIR. In my 9 years around here, I've only seen two other editors with the strange WP:SPA thing about killings he has. One was indeff'd for CIR, the other for WP:NOTHERE.

It's been long held at the noticeboards that labeling good faith edits as vandalism can be considered a WP:NPA violation. Don't wanna see you get pulled up on something silly. Be safe. A little more personal closing than I'd normally use, but these days ain't normal. John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Many thanks for your comment, including your concern that I might step over the line and get in trouble. A couple of comments in reply. The standard warning template for "only warning" (4im) reverts to a vandalism warning when the issue is making unsourced edits. I suppose I could write an individualized warning, although I tend toward templates because they have the official seal of approval of Wikipedia. Additionally, I might disagree that an editor who has made many unsourced or poorly sourced edits after more than one final warning is not vandalizing. Alternatively, I guess it could be labelled "disruptive editing", which is what the blocking admin used. Anyway, I'll give this more thought if the situation arises again.

The different regional blue laws are interesting. In the little town where I grew up, there was an old law on the books that prohibited plowing a field with an elephant on Sunday. Apparently a man somehow acquired an elephant and was using it to plow his fields, which didn't sit well with the locals. Although not enforced (unlikely that there were any violators), it remained in effect as late as 1970.

All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder if we have a sockpuppet here? And here is the telltale edit pattern: linking a website, but not the specific page that supports the edit. And, of course, no edit summar. Sundayclose (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I see you tagged the second user's talk. Probably should undue that. I doubt the person in question is sophisticated enough to understand, but we generally do not warn a potential sock we are on to them. Instead, go to WP:SPI and file a report describing why you are suspicious (reasons would be clear "tells" in their editing styles, similar editing interests, similar usernames, similarities in attitude...the so called WP:DUCK evidence). Note it isn't really considered problematic unless they are block evading with the sock, or trying to appear as more than one editor on the same article. Those are the disruptive uses of multiple accounts. Just having multiple accounts isn't a policy violation, but you are supposed to declare them. It isn't easy to file an SPI, but using Twinkle does make it easier. Don't warn either editor, and request checkuser. I unfortunately do not have enough time to check through all the edits to find a good "smoking gun". I'm on to him cause of his obsession with the school shootings article, which I watch in conjunction with my work on school articles. IMO, at least with the editor named above, he's gonna take care of his issues regarding editing or he'll get hauled up for competence. John from Idegon (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the recent edits by College railman, thanks for the cleanup, but please keep WP:ROLLBACKUSE (and, for what it's worth, WP:EW) in mind. While you have not technically used "rollback" for the reversions, the advice there is very useful. It is important to note that College railman is not, and has never been, a vandal. It is important to keep in mind that College railman is acting in good faith. Disruptively, yes – disruptively enough to warrant an indefinite block from editing articles. But in good faith. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Savoy Truffle

Hey, take it easy bro, Why are you threatening to block me for the first time? I am not a vandal, c'mon... Do you think I should quote the lyrics of Glass Onion as a reference?

Yours truly.--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sarmiento 007: New messages go at the bottom of the page.

I didn't say you are a vandal. I said you should stop adding unsourced edits. You got a more severe warning because you have a long history of adding unsourced or other problem edits, and you have been given multiple warnings. Quoting from the song is not a reliable source. What you need to do if you wish to make any edit (not just this one) is to cite a reliable source, not just your personal opinion. Click the blue link in the previous sentence to read about what is considered a reliable source. For information about citing sources, read WP:CITE. Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: I'm familiar with WP:DTR, but I'm not accustomed to having to revert regulars for making unsourced addtions, or not realizing that citations belong in the article rather than the edit summary. Anyway, I think you get the point, so let's move on. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

brain lol CatcherStorm ^talk 00:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashleigh Aston Moore

Regarding the note you left on my edit to Ashleigh Aston Moore's page, I can confirm that her birthday is actually September 30. If you google "Ashleigh Aston Moore birthday" or look her up on famousbirthdays.com, both sources say September 30, as do everywhere else. This is the only source that says it's November 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.160.75 (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Rape of males and Category:Incidents of violence against boys

I just reverted this IP at a number of articles. And I see that you've reverted the IP on adding "Category:Rape of males." I'm not sure what is the best way to use these categories, but I know that IP needed to reverted on some of the changes. Any thoughts on where to address this matter?

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the latter of the two is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Category:Incidents of violence against boys. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn

Greetings! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed for the fastest vandalism reverts in the west (yee-haw!). If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn page for installation instructions. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. Your feedback is much appreciated! JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

River Phoenix/Sabotage

So 1: None of the three paragraphs before the one you decided to delete have any citations:

Phoenix's friends, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, wrote a few lines for him in their hit song "Give It Away" from the 1991 album Blood Sugar Sex Magik: "There's a River born to be a giver, keep you warm won't let you shiver, his heart is never gonna wither ..." Phoenix also appears in the music video for their song, "Breaking the Girl" and following his death, the band paid tribute to him with the song "Transcending" (originally titled "River") on their 1995 album, One Hot Minute. Former Chili Peppers' guitarist, John Frusciante, dedicated the song "Smile From The Streets You Hold" to River Phoenix. Frusciante wrote the first part of the song about their friendship while Phoenix was still alive. After Phoenix's death, Frusciante wrote the second part in his memory.

Phoenix has been the subject of numerous other tributes in song and other media. The band R.E.M. dedicated their album Monster to Phoenix (as Michael Stipe and Phoenix were close friends), and their song "E-Bow the Letter" from 1996's New Adventures in Hi-Fi is said to have been written from a letter Michael Stipe wrote to Phoenix but never sent because of the actor's death. River Phoenix is referenced in the song "Sacred Life" from the eponymous album by the British band The Cult: "River Phoenix was so young, Don't you know your prince has gone?"

Ex-10000 Maniacs singer Natalie Merchant wrote and recorded a controversial song, simply named "River", featured on her 1995 solo album Tigerlily (Elektra). While she deplores this death of a "Young & strong Hollywood son" who was "one of ours", she criticizes strongly the excesses of the people's "vulture's candor" and the media's greedy attention to the event and adds: "Why don't you let him be ... /Give his father & his mother peace", as well as: "It's only a tragedy", ending with the real question behind it: "How could we save him / From himself?"

2: A simple search of "Sabotage beastie boys River Phoenix" in google gives you oh so many citations:

https://www.kerrang.com/features/a-deep-dive-into-beastie-boys-sabotage-video/

That’s kind of all there is to it, but it’s magnificent, as much due to the video as the track itself, an incredibly catchy punk/metal/rap hybrid that partly stemmed from Ad-Rock’s anger at dealing with paparazzi at his friend River Phoenix’s funeral.

https://apnews.com/84fea37f4e700a408615ba9491f7819c

LOS ANGELES (AP) _ A member of the Beastie Boys rap group was charged with attacking a ″Hard Copy″ cameraman and stealing his videotape outside a memorial service last month for actor River Phoenix.

Charges of battery and grand theft were filed Tuesday against Adam Horovitz, 27, said Mike Qualls, spokesman for the city attorney’s office.

Horovitz was asked to voluntarily show up for a municipal court arraignment Jan. 6.

The syndicated news magazine cameraman was allegedly beaten by Horovitz and another man after refusing to hand over a videotape of people arriving for a Nov. 4 memorial service for Phoenix, who died of a drug overdose Oct. 31. The service was at Horovitz’s home.

The other assailant was never identified, Qualls said.

The cameraman, whose name wasn’t released, finally removed the videotape from his camera and gave it to the attackers, authorities said.

Telephone messages left at Beastie Boys’ management, Gold Mountain Productions, and at ″Hard Copy″ offices weren’t immediately returned.

Grand theft is punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Battery carries a maximum of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Which was later turned out to be a lie:

http://exclaim.ca/music/article/beastie_boys-more_rhymes_than_grey_hairs

Ad Rock is falsely accused of hitting a Hard Copy cameraman during a private ceremony at his house for friend River Phoenix, who had died from a drug overdose.

3. The best one of all is from wikipedia itself. I'd know because I pretty much copy/pasted from another wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ill_Communication

The album's first single "Sabotage" was first laid down by all of the Beastie Boys playing instrumental parts at Tin Pan Alley Studios in New York, the whole driven by Adam Yauch's fuzzed and twangy bass. With the working title of "Chris Rock", the track sat unused for a year, lacking a vocal part. Then, after angrily confronting paparazzi at the Florida funeral of friend and actor River Phoenix in November 1993, Ad-Rock went to the home of producer Mario Caldato Jr. and rapped out his anger, recording the results on Caldato's 8-track tape machine, mixing the vocal with the earlier instrumental parts.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD5E:9950:55A4:59A8:997E:15AD (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Weaknesses in other parts of the article do not mean that you (or anyone) can make additional unsourced edits. Take the time the click the blue links in the message I put on your talk page and read the relevant policies. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. "Other crap exists" is not an excuse for creating additional problems. Additionally, citations belong in the article, not on my talk page. See WP:CITE. Also, copying from another Wikipedia page does not eliminate the need for citing a reliable source in the article you copy it to. See WP:CIRCULAR. I appreciate your efforts, but Wikipedia has policies that must be followed. You need to read them. Start by clicking the blue links. Then for more information, then go to WP:RULES. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

White album

Which editing are you attributing to me? Ono being acknowledged as lead singer on Bungalow Bill or Harrison on While My Guitar gently Weeps or both? If it is both, its not a question of inaccuracy but how the information is presented in the page. I am not a regular contributor or expert in that field but it appeared to me inconsistent to accredit Ono as lead singer for about 6 words and not mention every other minute vocal contributor on the album. If it is that Harrison was listed as lead singer on WMGGW it is only because it appeared twice on the main page alongside the track listing, it being credited to Harrison we understand that it is a George Harrison song in the same way it says Lennon we know that it is a John Lennon song. It was really only about appearing consistent throughout the page. Feel free to keep it as it was if it matters to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.205.106 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, not your opinion or my opinion. Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR. In this edit, you removed reliably sourced information. Also look at the introductory sentence to the table: "All tracks written by Lennon–McCartney, except where noted". Harrison's name in parentheses after the title WMGGW indicates an exception to the Lennon-McCartney writing credit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No need to attempt to lecture me on whether wiki is fact or opinion. It is not a fact that Ono is lead singer on Bungalow Bill any source will tell you that, where is your source for Ono being Lead singer on the song? is it rational to credit her or anyone else as contributing to the song, yes of course, but contributing vocals doesn't make you a lead singer. Listen to the song. The layout on the song crediting looks different from when I last saw it, but is it Surname only or Christian Name and Surname as non Lennon MacCartney compositions are listed inconsistently. Thank you and good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.205.106 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to lecture you. You can either accept Wikipedia's policies or move on to another website. Sundayclose (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Just go away you are annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.205.106 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is the requisite notice that you are at the cusp of violating WP:3RR at Die Hard (film series). You are reverting two different editor. Please discuss at the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Point taken. Thanks and apologies. Sundayclose (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite alright. Thank you for being gracious and collegial.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Beatles

It's completely mysterious to me. "Note" doesn't explain a thing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Did you look at the edit? It's common in articles to note a deceased person with a dagger (†). The edit placed a dagger after the name of each deceased person. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I saw the word "dagger" and had no idea what it meant. So your edit summary wasn't clear. Nor was that from BuffaloBob. And I've been editing here for over ten years, so careful with the assumptions. I hope we don't use the dagger because it ends up looking like a crucifix. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You're welcome. I'll be careful with assumptions. But you take the time to actually look at the edit as it appears in the article before reverting. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I DID look. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Not to belabor this, but did you see the daggers? And did you see the note near the bottom of the article: "†deceased"? Sundayclose (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw the daggers. Didn't see the note. Why would I? HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Because that was part of the edit, which is why I suggested that you look at the edit as it appears in the article before you revert. If you didn't see that note, that's the source of your confusion. But I think we've discussed this enough. Thanks for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In My Life

According to Ian MacDonald's book, Ringo did play tambourine on "In My Life". 193.119.79.167 (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Stop making the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Bruce Welch page

Hi Sundayclose,

I edited the 'Shadowmania' section of the Bruce Welch page without citation because I attended the events in question, and was often involved backstage, often performing onstage. I am Justin Daish, one of the guitarists who played onstage with Bruce at Shadowmania 2012 (in addition to Daniel Martin who is mentioned on the allowed page entry), and there is publicly available footage to corroborate this; my edit not only included mention of my own involvement but also provides first-hand testimony of other notable musicians who appeared at the event over the 15 years it was held. I would appreciate if my archived edit could be re-instated.

All the best,

Justin MeBHank (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@MeBHank: Thanks for your message, but I'm afraid that your personal experiences are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:RS carefully. Your personal experiences (or your identity) cannot be verified, and all content of Wikipedia must be verifiable. If Wikipedia allowed users' personal opinions it would be a huge, messy blog instead of an encyclopedia. I have a lot of personal knowledge that I could add to articles, but I don't. Feel free to try to find a reliable source to back up your edits. If you have questions about how to cite the information you can ask me, discuss it at the article's talk page, or add {{helpme}} to your talk page and someone will help you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: By those rules there is little verifiable evidence for any of the information already included in the 'Shadowmania' section other than the existence of the event, plus a significant amount of information elsewhere on the Bruce Welch page. I have hard copies of brochures/programmes from the event (scans of which can be emailed for verification), and there is plenty of video footage available from multiple sources. In the meantime I have made one small alteration with a link for verification. (Forgive me for not getting the formatting of this reply right (tabs, etc) but I'm not sure how as I'm unfamiliar with all aspects of code.) Cheers...MeBHank (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@MeBHank: Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so there will always be problems. But the presence of other poorly sourced information in an article is not a legitimate reason to add more unsourced information. I doubt that scanned brochures would be considered reliable sources, but I'm no expert on such a matter; for more information inquire at WP:RSNB. I wouldn't know whether video footage is an adequate source unless I could see it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Unsourced" = flimsy excuse

Re my edit to the Magical Mystery Tour article which you reverted as "unsourced": yeah, like every word in the article is backed up by sources, as we couldn't even say the word "album" without a source to back it up. (Or specifically, we can't even point out that the British A Hard Day's Night and Help! albums had their soundtrack songs on side one, as obviously we are all blind and deaf to such blatant facts.) At least you bothered with one word to "justify" your actions, for which I guess I'm supposed to be grateful. Congratulations on defending the article against any useful additions, and insuring that Wikipedia wallows in mediocrity. You may just delete this, or possibly come up with some lame defense which you'll pretend carries any substance. In any event, your actions are utterly pitiful. 2601:545:8201:6290:E4B7:49C2:40AB:1D2D (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always a work in progress. There will always be problems, including unsourced information. But "other crap exists" is not a legitimate excuse for creating more problems. Removing unsourced information is not a "flimsy excuse". It is Wikipedia policy. Take a minute or two to click and read the blue links in the message I sent you, especially WP:RS, as well as WP:V. If you don't want to adhere to Wikipedia policies, this is not the place for you. There are lots of blogs on the internet that would welcome your additions, sourced or unsourced. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Beatles - Cry baby Cry

I've read that we have to cite sources if we want to modify a genre, and I understand that we need this rule (even though some sources can describe a song or an album with multile different and sometimes conflicting genres, and who decides if a source is attendable or not?), but we ALL should respect this rule. I think that if a song's genre is debatable is better to left the genre general, not specific. Rock is a general term to describe all kinds of rock music. You, Sundayclose, think that the song Cry Baby Cry by The Beatles fits in the music hall genre, but i think it fits more on the gothic rock genre, because of it's spooky and mysterious mood (but I didn't add it to the song's genre because i didn't have any source to support my opinion). So who's right? Who has the better musical knowledge? We can't find out that I think. We can find a source online to support our thesis, or we can add both generes musical hall and gothic rock, or we better leave the song's genre neutral (rock). Please reply to me, i don't want you to "No reply" XD.

If you wish to change a genre, you must get consensus on the article's talk page rather than making unilateral decisions and edit warring, as you have been doing. If you continue the page will be protected and you will not be able to edit the article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A request

Please keep an eye on the article Sitar. Some users remove my edit without explanation. This is a request. Thank you! 119.42.56.102 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I Have Noticed that You Have Messaged Me

I left a description as to why the material was removed.

The quotation is a statement of propaganda by Erhman. In no way is it grounded in the scientific method and thus has no import with respect to the oral tradition.

In short, Erhman's personal bias rather than scholarship is the basis for the quote and worse, for the inclusion of it in the encyclopedia's page.

For its inclusion misleads the reader to believe the quote is a description of the oral tradition of the early Christian church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1109:A316:0:0:0:173 (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to get consensus on the article's talk page to remove sourced content based on your personal opinion. See WP:CONSENSUS. Sundayclose (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU ENGAGING IN A CHANGE WAR?

As explained, the Ehrman quote lacks scholarship. There is not even one hint of the scientific method in it.

The telephone game is not science and does not explain oral tradition for any people of any time in the history of mankind. Certainly, it does not explain the origin of the gospels. There are actual theories of oral tradition transmission including triple Mark.

Letting it stand reveals anti-Christian prejudice. It's like calling Christians n199ers.

Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1109:A316:0:0:0:173 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Dana Hill

Dana Hill needs page protection as it's under attack by an IP jumper who is determined to insert their claim that Hill is "best known" for a somewhat obscure animated series. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Go to WP:RPP. Sundayclose (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's probably an WP:LTA. Just an FYI....There's an LTA sock called the "best known as" vandal. Not sure exactly where the LTA is listed. Perhaps a regular at SPI would know. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please Please Me

These are not my personal opinions.

I don't understand why this misinformation is even in the article, because Andy White says that he drummed on the released performance, but that is so not true, because he wasn't even present on the November 26 session and he only played the September 11 session.

Geoff Emerick claimed that he saw Mal Evans set up Ringo's kit in the studio later that day, but that's impossible, because The Beatles didn't even know Mal yet and they didn't meet him until 1963.

You must've sent it to me by mistake.

60.241.226.149 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No mistake. The content of Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources that are properly cited in the article. Carefully read WP:RS and WP:CITE before making any additional edits. If you wish to edit here, you must follow policies. And it's pointless for you to message me or anyone until you do. You removed properly sourced information. Don't do it again.Sundayclose (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Please... Explain this to me...

Could you please explain how, by adding easily verifiable, previously publicly disclosed, information about a radio station I may or may not have been involved with years ago constitutes (a) red-flagging me for doing so, and then for good measure (b) removing information that is so basic, and so easily verifiable by anyone with a modicum of research capability, as to be accepted by anyone with basic common sense as being unbiased, not self-promoting, or whatever it is exactly you think is going on with this update? I mean, if you want I'm sure there are former volunteers or even listeners from the station who can provide the information that was restored in this update. So please... explain this to me like a child, because without that explanation? No offense, but this seems nothing short of idiotic.

Also, if you want to see an example of the type of content you actually should be censoring as self-promoting or perhaps less than factual? Check out the biography of Ross Shafer. If what I've posted about WKRP-LP is any of the things you're alleging? The guy editing this page ought to be banned from editing for life, without possibility of parole.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaleighRadioGaGa (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 

@RaleighRadioGaGa: If it's so "easily verifiable", then you should have no difficulty citing a reliable source for the edits you make, as you are required to do; as everyone is required to do. You have no special status that excuses you from that requirement, and other editors have no obligation to clean up after you. You have been told this repeatedly, and each warning has blue links that explain the policy, but apparently you felt no need to read the policies. Don't add the information again, and don't waste my time messaging me again, until you are willing to meet this requirement. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And the fact that other crap exists in other articles is entirely irrelevant. Problems in another article don't bestow a special dispensation for you to continue creating problems. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for discussion

I didn't know that. I should have left it that way. Bernspeed (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on The Vast of Night

Whether a character is cocksure is a matter of opinion but proper punctuation is not. Compound modifiers preceding a noun always carry hyphens. Also, a series of adjectives preceding a noun should always be separated by commas. I have edited the sentence in question accordingly. Lechonero (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lechonero: Thanks for your message, and I generally agree about the punctuation. Sundayclose (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on the Zapruder film article?

You claimed it was unsourced, but there is a source provided.

See Reference 1. 'The Other Shooter: The Saddest and Most Expensive 26 Seconds of Amateur Film Ever Made', quotation from source:...

"... Together, they drove to the television station WFAA for help, but their equipment wasn't sufficient. In the late afternoon, the film was taken to Eastman Kodak's Dallas processing plant where it was immediately developed, and, at 6:30 p.m., driven to the Jamieson Film Company, where three additional copies were exposed. By 8 p.m. Zapruder had the original and a copy, and handed the other two copies to Sorrels, who sent them to Washington. That left him with one extra copy of history's most famous home movie..."

Kindly explain what is wrong with my edit. This reference was already on the article (and your revert leaves it still on the article), and my edit merely expanded the information contained within that source.

Thanks. Crackersgreen (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Crackersgreen: You're right. I acted too hastily, and just reverted my edit. Apologies. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate your apology and revert. Crackersgreen (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Victoria Vetri

We may disagree on the application of Wikipedia:FREER, however your warning on my page was out of bounds. You are also now driving an edit war on Victoria Vetri. I am going to restore the image once more. If you disagree please IFD the image. --evrik ^(talk) 01:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: This is not a matter of disagreement. It is a serious policy violation with potential legal implications. Restore the image again and we'll be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. Wait for the decision about deletion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Jienum

I saw that you recently gave the above editor a Level 4 warning for adding unsourced information. Today they made this edit, which I reverted for not adding a source. I couldn't see a clear history of them adding unsourced info, so I'm reluctant to open an AIV case or take other action myself, but you're welcome to do so if you feel it's warranted. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doniago: Thanks for your message. If you look at Jienum's talk page, there are numerous warnings for a variety of policy violations, including adding original research, which is close to the same as adding unsourced information. Some of the warnings are for worse infractions, including personal attacks. This person has edited for 14 years but on the rare occasion when they respond to warnings they act as if they have little knowledge of how things work on Wikipedia. I don't think it would take much to get a block. That being said, the edit you linked is the kind that I usually don't revert. There's no citation, but the information is easily confirmed in the linked article (Robert Redford). But I would have no objection if you reported it at WP:AIV. When editors like this rack up many warnings with no consequences I think the warnings become meaningless. Sometimes only a block will get their attention. Sundayclose (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

After checking their edit history, I did see issues with them failing to provide sources, though unfortunately other editors haven't been warning them on such occasions. Coupled with your above comment it was enough for me to make a filing at AIV, though I'm really not sure whether that will go anywhere. I would invite you to add a comment if you feel you can make a stronger case. DonIago (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy booking information

Are you telling me that the LA county jail inmate information is not a valid source for information about inmates that are inside the LA county Jail? What would you consider a valid ref for this to be if it is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:1430:7938:C662:A569:6B32 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You have to type his name in to get the results page. Ronald Hyatt then you push the search button and boing, his booking info pops up like a - well use your imagination here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:1430:7938:C662:A569:6B32 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Magical negro

I replaced "white people" with the more neutral "popular culture" because the "white people" in this context is a negatively charged description. We are talking about the entertainment industry here, not a whole race. 92.220.125.90 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction of Lee Atwater's Quote on "Southern Strategy"

The minor correction I am making is the last word of Lee Atwater's dialogue, which isn't "backbone" as you have presented it, but "back-burner". Backbone in this context makes no sense and is also incorrect, because for 2 reasons;

Listen closely to the exclusive interview with Atwater and you'll notice he says "back-burner", not "backbone". And, in Mr. Jeffery Robinson's (from the ACLU) presentation on Racism in America, he confirms the very same thing.

It makes sense that Atwater uses the idiom/euphemism "coming on the back-burner" to describe his racist policy.

Coming on the backbone makes no sense.

Thank you.

ZeekJL (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain why you made this revert? As a rule, any revert that is not reverting obvious vandalism should be explained in the edit summary, see Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Oops! My mistake. I reverted back. Thanks for letting me know and apologies. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My citation was reasonable.

Hi, you repealed my edit because my citation wasn't trustworthy enough. I would like to request permission to re-submit my entry on the page "List of backmasked messages", with this faulty citation removed. I was unable to find another source that talked about this specific back-masking, so there isn't any more trustworthy citation to use. Clearly, the website wasn't lying about this backmasked message, as anybody could open the song "Hidden In The Sand" in an audio editor right now and clearly hear the words "Wouldn't the world be better off if we took nonsense more seriously?" Please revert your edit, let me put it back up with the citation removed, or tell me why I'm wrong.

--166.181.253.59 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Missy Gold

There is nothing in either inline citation to say this is the person known as Melissa Fisher or Missy Gold. There is nothing saying Gold or Fisher is now known as Melssa Wiedmann. Not referernced, WP:OR. Get some reliable sources that say these things and keep in mind WP:SYNTH too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH reads 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' You again added sources to the article none of which say Missy Gold is a practicing psychologist known now as Melissa Wiedmann. The sources either say Gold became a psychologist or that a person named Wiedmann is a psychologist. Not both. Therefore WP:SYNTH applies. @Hemiauchenia: who removed your sources....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Respond at Talk:Missy Gold#Psychologist. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing Problems

Thank you, I forgot to cite my source on Jason Drucker, I will be sure to cite it the next time I edit and I deeply apologize. Hartma9616 9:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartma9616 (talk • contribs)

counting McCartney albums...

1. Mc I 2. Ram 3. Mc II 4. Tag 5. Pipes

it seems that the count is different on the Wiki pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.151.30 (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

Sorry I wrote it late and half asleep. If I rewrite it correctly can I add the correct info unlike what's on the page now? Deac7117 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deac7117: The wording before your edit was accurate and written better. Your wording was awkward. The part about lungs collapsing is superfluous. It's clear that he was seriously injured; details about the injury add nothing to the the basis for the story. Don't rewrite it. It's fine like it is. Sundayclose (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself more clear. Two years after the accident Stephen King got pneumonia(due to the accident in 1999) and ended up in the hospital. It was during that time she stated the same remodel of the office and that's when he got the idea for Lisey's Story. That is what I meant by the incorrect information. Again sorry for not being more clear. Deac7117 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And the pneumonia is why he had Scott Landon die or infection in his lungs was a nod to how the story got formed but this part isn't need just my previous message. Again sorry for the scattered messages. Deac7117 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deac7117: We can only report what's in the source. In the source (a video of King) he does not state that it occurred two years after the accident. And it's your speculation that the way Landon died is related to King's pneumonia. Again, we only report what's in the source; we don't speculate. That is a fundamental cornerstone of how Wikipedia works. Read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source that confirms what you say, feel free to raise the issue again. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I will do so. I have book by Bev Vincent (who Stephen King states knows more about Stephen King's work then Stephen King himself).

Deac7117 (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for getting back to me. I will provide sources once I'm home from work. Deac7117 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry until then if you search Stephen King and pneumonia there is no report of him having it until 2003. Which well after his accident. Also Stephen King never mentioned having pneumonia before 2003. Sorry I'm repeating myself but will get more creditable info. Deac7117 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to send photos of the book I have with the info?

The book I have is "The Stephen King Illustrated Companion Book by Bev Vincent" the info is on page 155.

Also to back up my support in the video being used as the main source, King says when he came home from the hospital he went to his office on the second floor. In On Writing he states his wife had to set up a makeshift office on the ground floor because his injuries. I can give page number for that as well.

Deac7117 (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(I understand the pneumonia theory is mine but the timeframe is what I mainly wanted to voice was wrong/misunderstood. Deac7117 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I just watch the video. It doesn't mention he got pneumonia in 1999.

Once again I apologize with mass messages and my tricks and for not including my sources and again thank you for your time discussing this with me. Most times sites don't respond concerns people have like you did. It's very much appreciated.

• I have over 20 links all sourcing Stephen King only having pneumonia a few years after 1999. I can include them until I send you photos of the book I've mentioned that includes what I claim. Deac7117 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deac711: Feel free to suggest an edit. Information on citing a source is at WP:CITE. Sundayclose (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the info and again for the vast amount of messages. Deac7117 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Another couple questions from a luddite. Once I put in the source do I go back and edit the section I edited the other day or do I have to send it some where else? This is the first time I'm trying to edit anything on Wikipedia if you couldn't tell haha. Deac7117 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deac7117: You can do it all in one edit. First make the edit in the article, then add the citation for the source (see WP:CITE) at the end of the edit, write an edit summary, be sure to click Preview (button under the edit window) to look at it before you save, then click Publish Changes. If you make a mistake you can go back in and fix it. For an introduction to editing see H:EDIT. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Comprised of"

I don't object to the revert of the addition I made to the lede, but if you understand the issue and you believe my summary was inaccurate, could you please add a brief summary to the lede that is accurate about why "comprised of" is considered incorrect by some professionals. 2601:647:CB03:5930:4802:7EDD:22CB:34E7 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Suicide article

Hey there. I noticed you reverted my edit on Suicide. I wrote that suicide ideation is the main cause. In my opinion, thinking about suicide/feeling suicidal in the first place is the only thing that actually causes you to do it, compared to what's listed now which is methods of carrying it out, not direct causes. GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That's simply your personal speculation. Suicidal ideation is a symptom of possible suicide, not a cause. It's like fever is to an infection; fever is a symptom, not a cause. Suicidal ideation does not always lead to suicide, and suicide can be attempted with almost no prior suicidal ideation. That's a no-brainer for those of us who have talked to hundreds of people who either suicided or attempted it. Stick with the sources, not your speculations. I think the Cause parameter should be blank because there can be many causes, and often the causes are unknown. Sundayclose (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2020

I do agree to some extent that causes should be blank, but my point was that methods of carrying out suicide should not be considered causes, which I'm sure you'll agree with based on your reply.

Also, can you start your next message with {{Re|[user]}} so it tells me that you responded, please? Thx🙏GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: I never said that the method is the cause. But changing the cause to a symptom makes even less sense. Sundayclose (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Uw-linking

I saw the disruptive edit you caught on Mother Hive and the subsequent warning. You may be delighted to know that there is a more specific user warning template, {{Uw-linking}}, which is available on Twinkle under the "single-issue notices" section. Happy editing! Ibadibam (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sundayclose. this list of edits suggests that you reverted four times within 24 hours at Talk:Winona Ryder, starting at 00:06 on 14th August. Talk-page warring is still warring unless it is your own talk page, which it isn't. Consider promising to stay away from the article and its talk page for a week in order to avoid a 3RR block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Agreed. Apologies and thanks for your gracious message. Sundayclose (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Chowchilla

I appreciate that you own the Chowchilla article, but the edit I made pertaining to the TV episode was discussed in the news media at the time. It was a top 30 series and many people recognized the script as a veiled treatment of the Chowchilla kidnapping which had only taken place three years earlier. It is at least as worthy of being in the article as the reference to some true crime documentary that was made 45 years later.Bellczar (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bellczar: Personal websites are not reliable sources. Read WP:SELFPUB. Unless you can provide a reliable source do not restore the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have found a source and yet another TV episode that is derived from the incident. I will update within a few days. As the owner of the article, I expect that you will know about it within 1 minute.Bellczar (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bellczar: Please carefully read WP:RS before citing a source. Sundayclose (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know.

Not sure if you're an administrator or basic user, but it would probably have been easier to let me know about the citations before you deleted all my previous work one by one.

Or, possibly helping out with the citations since all of the changes were minor, common knowledge and easily findable on Google. Not sure if it's easier to play gatekeeper than help with group editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMoxey92 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@PMoxey92: I understand, but I never know if someone plans to come back and clean up other edits. Wish I had more time to find sources, but right now I don't. By the way, always sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~) Happy editing. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

David McCallum/Fifth Beatle

I appreciate the edit. I remember McCallum being referred to as the "fifth Beatle." But you are correct, there is no source for this, although he is quoted as saying it himself, for instance, here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/david-mcallums-heartache-death-adopted-1689147. Please finish the job and remove references to the Beatles from David McCallum. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Judge Rotenberg Center

You have twice removed my image from aversion therapy, saying there is no proof that this occurs. Please read the article on Judge Rotenberg Center. The school freely admits that they used to strap students to a four-point board and shock them with a GED as punishment before the practice was banned. This was part of court-approved treatments plans, and has even been caught on video. I will return the image with appropriate sourcing, and I hope that you will not remove it again. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Second American Civil War edit approval

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_American_Civil_War&diff=974542619&oldid=974402202&diffmode=source

You don't have to accept this revision that removes a whole 2nd ACW appearance in media. Here is the reasons:

-Second ACW is a major theme in Kaiserreich

-Kaiserreich has a wide audience that's proved by its Steam subscription number and Youtube videos watch count at millions

-Removing valid content that is a cultural reference of Second ACW in a game that has wide coverage can be counted as vandalism

NotAldariasky (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@NotAldariasky: Accepting a pending edit is not an endorsement of the edit. It is simply a verification that vandalism did not occur. A content dispute is not vandalism, so the edit was properly accepted. Anyone is free to revert or change an edit. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Another opinion for Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness

Hi Sundayclose, 66.244.121.212's claims of DTT—the structured form of early applied behavior analysis (ABA) intervention for autism—not being evidence based because of one recent literature review by Cochran does not sound right. It's based on over fifty years of proven research and literature reviews, i.e. see here: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1162. And saying that the technique is not effective in the O. Ivar Lovaas Wikipedia article doesn't seem correct either. It's well-established in the research literature for improving the intellectual performance of children with autism and for many, they have shown to make substantial gains in language, adaptive, and social skills, it outperforms other treatments including traditional speech therapy, and is recommended by the Surgeon General (1999), American Academy of Pediatrics (2007), and US National Research Council (2001). ATC ^{. Talk} 05:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ATC is canvassing. He has reached out to three other individuals to try to get support for his opinion. As you can see from my talk page, I am the same IP you had a dispute with about a week ago. ATC sent you this message just after finding the page about which we had a dispute. It is highly inappropriate for him to be reaching out to you in this way. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You accused me of vandalising the "Scarborough Fair" page. I have no idea what I did wrong.

I keep trying to add crucial information to the page (i.e clearly pointing out where the actual tune comes from, adding field recordings which there is no other mention of on the page). I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I'm very confused about what the problem is. At first, I used YouTube videos as a citation, which I now understand is wrong. I listened to the the suggestion and added them back in with proper citations (linked to the Vaughan Williams Memorial Library, the most trusted database of folk song collection). Please explain why these cannot be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoknfonfosijogij (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sdoknfonfosijogij: I didn't accuse you of vandalism. I warned you for adding unreferenced or poorly referenced edits. The sources must confirm everything you place in the article. The YouTube links don't confirm much of anything except how the songs sound. Most YouTube videos are not acceptable reliable sources; they are user created; see WP:SELFPUB. For some particular problems with your edits click the links in the warnings. Please especially note WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:YOUTUBE. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to review Victoria Vetri edit

You might wish to review your reversion edit of Victoria Vetri, which used an image from the film Invasion of the Bee Girls (1973). The film is in the public domain as the film was never registered with the U.S. Copyright Board (a requirement back then). Thanks. Deanlaw (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deanlaw: Check the article. I reverted my edit four days ago, soon after I made the edit???? Sundayclose (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, wiki sent me a new notice message today on this for some reason. Please delete this entry on your page. Thanks. Deanlaw (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Block request

As outlined in Talk:Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC and Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, 66.244.121.212 keeps reverting valid sources describing the history of the research of literature reviews on DTT, which are based on WP:MEDRS guidelines. I know you already asked him to remove the unnecessary picture of the drawing on Aversion therapy, which I had to remove as well, but he reverted it back. I think he needs to be blocked. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ATC: You need to take this up on the article's talk page. If you need to take it further, go to WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, do you have the template info to post the notice of the block to his talk page? Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ATC: That is only done by administrators. Sundayclose (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Take care! ATC ^{. Talk} 04:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

SO, YOU THINK YOU ARE THE GOD OF WIKI?

8/29/20

8/30/20 I made the edits & added the additions to the REV. DR. MLK page ... because, for one, that is his FULL, CORRECT TITLE **and** his educational status! (PhD) Also, in college, I was taught to write for those who read on a 4th grade level. That way, EVERYONE should be able to understand what I have written. I also added what I did bc Americans born after 1995 know very little about Rev Dr MLK. DO U THINK ONLY AMERICANS READ WIKI IN ENGLISH? ... NO! Many, many English-speaking foreigners & ESL foreigners read Wiki pages in English! That is why I ALWAYS include many historical facts & definitions for FOREIGNERS . I try to explain things or concepts in the double brackets: [[ ]] . Would a foreigner or an American born after 1995 automatically know Rev Dr King was African American? NO. Would they automatically know he had a PhD? NO. Many ppl everywhere think "dr" means "medical dr." Would they automatically know or conclude he was a Baptist? NO. There are a "zillion" Protestant Christianity denominations - each one VERY IMPORTANT to whichever one a person belongs to. They cant be lumped together bc each has a different dogma. Duh! I WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST FROM 1960 TO 1975, & ALTHOUGH I NEVER HAD THE PRIVILEDGE TO MEET REV DR KING, I MARCHED ALONG WITH HIM IN SPIRIT IN LA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. By DELETING the KEY facts I TOOK THE TIME TO ADD ... when I SHOULD have been doing something else .. you are not only doing a DISSERVICE TO THE MEMORY & WORK OF REV DR KING, you are also doing a GREAT DISSERVICE to those who want to learn about him. For MANY net surfers .. Wiki is the ONLY page they will EVER read on a topic or person. By DELETING the KEY facts I TOOK THE TIME TO ADD ... when I SHOULD have been doing something else .. you are also doing a DISSERVICE TO ME & ... showing me extreme DISRESPECT. I find you to be very arrogant, very rude & a wannabe know-it-all. Again, you are NOT the God of all Wiki pages. LMilagros5472 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Until you take the time to carefully read Manual of Style your edits will continue to be reverted, and not just by me. You have a long edit history of violating that style as well as policy violations that have been reverted by several editors. And then you become quite offended because you didn't bother to read and follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sundayclose (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that the most indignant complainers never offer any sources to back up their positions? It must be an awful burden to walk around thinking you are the sole bastion of truth. John from Idegon (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)