User talk:JMyrleFuller

Previous logs:

• User talk:JMyrleFuller/Archive 1 (prior to 2011)
• User talk:JMyrleFuller/Archive 2 (2011 to 2022)

Happy New Year!

JMyrleFuller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops: The same to you, from one autism spectrum inhabitant to another! J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming to learn that there are many of us on this great playground we call Wikipedia! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of common misconceptions. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was sourced; what are you talking about? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments: First, read the four inclusions criteria when you open any edit window for the article. Second, read my edit summary. Third, virtually none of your edit is in the source cited. No mention of AI and certainly no indication that it is/was a misconception among anyone except possibly the NSA people mentioned in the source. Even the NSA people were only concerned that it recorded, not that it used AI. Sundayclose (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kurt Benkert. AGAIN, information in your edit is not in the source you cite. Sundayclose (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just lying to stalk my profile. Enough. You want me to quit Wikipedia? So be it. I quit. Then maybe you'll stop harassing me. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a direct quotation from the source you cite where

personal attack. Consider this a warning against making personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"But Ward also knew his only other option was thrusting Kurt Benkert into the role just three days after his arrival via trade last Thursday — the same day No. 1 quarterback Jack Coan joined Week 5 starter Reid Sinnett on the injured list. "

Speaking of personal attacks, you have been engaging in edit wars with me for over two months at this point (dating back to a minor detail as to why Taylor Swift wasn't doing the Super Bowl halftime show), over some of the pettiest of criteria. For example, take the case of WTWW. Because of the highly niche nature of American shortwave radio (compared to AM/FM), I have had to rely on other sources to keep information up to date. One of those sources is Glenn Hauser's World of Radio, which is syndicated among shortwave stations and is effectively a newscast covering the band. Without incorporating him as a source, the article would be outdated, since all of the more reliable newspaper and TV sources discussing the station are all from before November 2022, when the key personnel discussed in those articles left the station (as anyone who listened to that station or the station to which WTWW's staff went would know firsthand). It's not an ideal situation but I used editorial discretion.

I had hoped, by staying away for a week instead of the one day your sockpuppet suspended me for, that tempers could cool, but considering you found fault in the very first edit I made after coming back, that appears not to be the case. I ask you again to please assume good faith—which does not mean going through a person's edit history and reverting articles en masse. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One little problem. Your edit did not cite the source that you link above. Your edit about Coan was not sourced, and my warning stands. When you get warnings and blocks from multiple editors, consider the possibility that the problems are with your edits instead of everyone else. The rest of your comments make little sense. And regarding your comment about my "sockpuppet", consider this a final warning about making personal attacks with false, entirely unfounded accusation. If you want to determine if I'm a sockpuppet, go to

WP:SPI. Otherwise, comment on content, not contributors. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, @JMyrleFuller… I don’t know you, but it saddens me to see a seemingly well-qualified editor (based on a quick review of your recent contribs, at least) made to feel that they should no longer contribute to this site. I really hope you reconsider and continue contributing to Wikipedia, as this site needs more users like you who are actually trying to grow the encyclopedia. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Rhino Brothers Present the World's Worst Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail

WP:NALBUM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: I do not object. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk Shows USA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk Shows USA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot in lede to update fake 2021 1.171 version with real 2023 1.176 version according to: http://www.code2001.com , please do it in this admin-only editable article, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.134.18.88 (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northpoleradio.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the

WP:GNG

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello JMyrleFuller, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Off Beat Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limited series.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted one of your edits at Odd Man Out (American TV series) because it has nothing to do with The Loud House. Any similarities you may think they have are so small that adding it on the page adds no significance. If we add The Loud House, we’d have to add hundreds of other shows to the “See Also” section. I just wanted to let you know i did revert that contribution. I am a fan of both show’s by the way & i am very familiar with both plot line’s. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvisisalive95 That's all right. It's not enough of an issue for me to raise a fuss over it. I only did it because it's common here to have "See also" sections for TV series and other works of fiction that include similar premises. But as I said, it's not crucial to the article so I don't have any issue with it being reverted/left out. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lions Club All-Star High School Football Classic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]