Talk:Seatbelt Psychic

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There are many concerns here. The editor of this page @Vikiemoney has made elementary mistakes that do not reflect the most basic editing skills. Citation 1 which is the most used citation is [1] Buckle Up - Vikiemoney has credited the author as someone named Marc kreidler, no idea who that is. I am the author of that piece. Vikiemoney also has that citation supporting the phrase "taxi ride from the dead" no where in Buckle Up does it refer to the show as a taxi ride from the dead. Buckle Up says many things and has comes to clear conclusions about the show which are not in this Wikipedia version.

The citation to Soulmate Twin Flame is not a reliable source and I am glad it has been removed. Thomas John (medium) is NOT a "Well-known medium" there is no citation for that. And the history of sharing his talents and predicting deaths like Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson is beyond credulous. "Random folks receive a taxi ride" is untrue and the citations back that up. In Vickimoney's own version of this Wikipedia page, they have shown a cast of people with IMDb profiles, all mentioned in Buckle Up.

The article Right Turns Only [2] is used once in the review section. But the author is credited as someone named Alexander Nicalse, when I'm the author. Other article are missing that should be used.

Obviously, I can not edit this Wikipedia page. But I think that Vikiemoney's other edits on other Wikipedia page should be looked at to see if they continue to miss-appropriate articles. Personally I think that this article should we should be merged into the medium's Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason / Argument - This is not a mistake that I made, this is something Wiki did on its own when I use the automatic feature to add a citation, yes I see the author name is Susan Gerbic, are you claiming to be the author because if you are this is a violation of Wikipedia's policies? You don't suppose to have any connections to this article at all. FYI - Other sources besides "Skeptical Inquirer Magazine" are being used for this article such as Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter, Bustle, CNN, TV Insider, Vogue, etc. Also according to the source "Skeptical Inquirer Magazine" - Buckle Up that you claim you wrote states that the medium Thomas John speaks to their "dead" family members.

• Reason / Argument - When it comes down to writing articles on Wikipedia or anywhere professionally everyone knows that you don't suppose to copy word-from-word from sources, plagiarism is a crime. If you did your research from other sources online you will see that the ride is a type of taxi or ride-share (I'll just change it to car ride), there are tons of articles relating to celebrities such as Whitney Houston, and picking up strangers.

• Reason / Argument - Again this is on Wiki's end when I used the automatic feature to add a citation. For some apparent reason it added Alexander Nicalse. Also you don't suppose to have a connection to this article. You keep telling on yourself stating that you are the author of the sources. This sounds very personal and this goes against Wikipedia policies, but what I can do is change it to the name that is listed on the page of the article / source. I do see "Susan Gerbic", So I am assuming this must be you? I will change all of those sources to your name now. As far as this article is concerned you really have to do your research because I've done it on you and it states that you "Susan Gerbic" (owner of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine) are a skeptic when it comes down to the medium Thomas John and his psychic gifts. Again this is against Wikipedia policies, having a connection to the source.

• Overall I would like for someone to look into the person (Sgerbic) who did this write up on here (Let's Talk Section) because I believe that he/she/them might have a connection with this article. This type of behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. You don't suppose to have any type of connection with the article/source. The writer Sgerbic stated at the top of this section that they are the author of one of the sources from [3] Buckle Up. This individual is showing some type of personal vendetta against the medium Thomas John. Again this goes against Wikipedia policies, also when we create articles on this platform again we are not suppose to have a connection to the subject that we are writing about. Whoever this is sounds like him/her/they are coming from a personal place. Plus this user described my writing skills as "elementary" and said that all of the pages I created should be reviewed as if I don't know what I'm doing or implying that I'm not intelligent. This is a form of cyberbullying. If this is Susan Gerbic, all she had to do here on the "Talk Page" is ask me respectfully to update the sections of the article that is related to her platform "Skeptical Inquirer Magazine", So please look into this individual's profile Sgerbic, history, etc. I will change the sources to the correct writer's name Susan Gerbic, again this is not a mistake on my end, but from the automatic feature to add a citation. I will even take out the word "Taxi", even though there are sources stating otherwise. Thanks!

• Please Note - Currently some of Sgerbic's request / changes have been made since she seems to be related to this subject / article (Seatbelt Psychic). The other changes she (I believe is Susan Gerbic) is asking for will not be changed since these sources have no connections with her or her platform "Skeptical Inquirer Magazine" such as Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter, Bustle, CNN, TV Insider, Vogue, etc. So the appropriate updates have been made per the guidelines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikiemoney (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susan knows the Wikipedia policies, such as

WP:COI, far better than you do. That is why she wrote Obviously, I can not edit this Wikipedia page. And she is not "the owner of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I know about the policies too, I've done my research, but thanks for confirming that it is Susan. According to "

WP:SOC" accounts on Wikipedia is unacceptable and this type of behavior goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Plus there is no point of you attacking me when I've already have made her requested changes/updates. Vikiemoney (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:COI

does not say someone with a COI regarding an article is not allowed to edit the Talk page of that article. So, when you said, this is a violation of Wikipedia's policies, it was clear that had not done your research.

You accuse me of questioning your intelligence, which I absolutely did not do. It's easy to check, it is just one line, in which all I questioned was your familiarity with the policies. And in the next sentence, you say It is very clear your not that wise. So you are doing something you accused me of in the previous sentence? That is such bullshit.

you haven't made any edits since September 15, 2020 That is such bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about. I am making edits almost every day.

This gives me the impression that you are Susan or someone who is affiliated with her.‎ That is such bullshit. Everybody who "makes no edits" must be Susan or an affiliate? Now I am sorely tempted to question your intelligence, but I won't.

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you definitely need to improve your arguing skills, on a scale between 1 and 10, from somewhere in the negative three-digit numbers to at least plus 4. The first thing you should learn is

WP:NPA

.

Can you now please stop the bullshitting and the personal attacking and talk about article improvements? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you "Hob Gadling", I was referring to Susan. Again all of her requested changes/updates have been made so there is no point in you using profanity or keep writing in here (Talk:Seatbelt Psychic). All of the issues have been resolved, case close. Vikiemoney (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence can easily be checked to be untrue. But it is a good idea for you to leave. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good move Vickiemoney to start out the gate accusing other editors of being sockpuppets. That isn't going to endear you to most editors who edit in this area. You might want to apologize to Hob and start changing your attitude. If you have an issue take it up with me. Just sayin' Sgerbic (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind when people do that. What they write about their opponents are just their own fantasies anyway and have nothing to do with the person they attack in the first place. They only hurt their own case when they attack others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gee I must be doing a really good job hiding my identity, if it took Vikiemoney that long to figure out that Sgerbic is Susan Gerbic, it's not as if I have my COI and identity clearly written on my talk page! I haven't made an edit since September 2020? Wow, Just Wow! About using someone else as the author, I understand that this can happen when using wiki-text but it is kinda your job as the main editor to check these things. Kinda important. Also it's pretty important to really read the sources, you left a lot out that was critical of the show. Like everything pretty much that is critical. And where is the

tag? I'm out and about today for most of the day, I hope you will read the articles that are written about this piece, I think there are four. I do still think that this page is not independent enough of the medium, so should be merged, but that is a discussion for others as I have a COI. Remember Vikiemoney, I tagged you. Obviously I was expecting you to come here and discuss this. And I still stand on what I said, the other articles that you have written, should be checked to see if you used the same "skills" you used to write this one. Sgerbic (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get started. #1 Thomas John is NOT a well-known medium. I've mentioned how insignificant he is, I call him "at most a C-level psychic." Also in the same article "Right Turns Only" I interview someone who was sitting in the back seat getting a reading. So very important that this should be included in the Wikipedia article.[4] #2 The article "Soulmate Twin Flame" is back again. Sgerbic (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next - "has a history of sharing his talents in the entertainment field relating to world events and predicting celebrities deaths such as Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson." What does this mean? "Sharing his talents?" "relating to world events" "predicting celebrities deaths" what are you talking about? You have proof of this? And talents? You have read the articles I wrote right? Sgerbic (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston and Jackson predictions are mentioned in the “TV Insider” reference, although it seems to have sourced them from his own website. It also mentions the “world events”, but isn’t specific on what they are. I think these claims should go in the absence of better sources. Brunton (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fringe article - we don't add whatever nonsense that is in print, just because it is in print. Sgerbic (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next - "random people" - I think it is fair to say that according to the advertisements for the show these are random people he is giving a reading to. I think a quote from them would be a good idea. Followed immediately by what is written in the SI articles. They were actors, some had IMDb profiles, one person was interviewed about the process, said he was answering an ad and thought he was going to be on a game show, filled out a lot of papers before online and right before he got in the car that was covered in cameras. All those people who got in that car, knew they were being filmed, filled out paperwork before, came to the event knowing they would be filmed, sat in the back seat so they could best be seen by the cameras. The only named person on the show is the medium, yet there is a casting director and many assistant casting people, all mentioned on the screen. You do not have to do original research, we know we can't do that as editors. BUT it is all in the articles citated. These people are as random as any people on a casted show can be. Sgerbic (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a whack at some cleanup, before actually reading this. It looks like what I saw as problems were about what you saw. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank goodness. The page is almost bare bones now. I still think that it should be merged into his bio. You can't have the show without TJ. But I don't get to vote. SOooo can you please add the content from the articles mentioned? The quote that is attributed to me is okay, but I think facts about the show make more sense. And there are a lot of facts and they are all R/S. Sgerbic (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my phone right now, so I probably won't be doing any real editing in the near future. I just looked for reviews in RS, and there's really not much out there, so whatever we take from the SI review should be limited and concise. I'd rather avoid quotes and just summarize in a paragraph. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the critique from Gerbic in the two SI pieces being cited in the article. I agree, a summary that's limited and concise is best: [5]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, although I was planning on also including something to summarize that it should only be viewed as entertainment. I'm fine with it as is, though. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]