User talk:JohnFromPinckney/Archives/2021

Hi JohnFromPinckney,

I saw that you erase the info about Paulina Rubio's certifications, but I think that the infos/sources were not unreliable. Since organizations like IFPI and RIAA didn't exist in most of latin countries, some wikipedian users add links from reputable magazines and journals to latin artists articles. It's that way for most of them and till now we didn't have problem with that, and that's why all that info you erase was there.--

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I feel there must have been a mistake in the Academy's voting, but thank you very much! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts at Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. Unfortunately, it will be overwritten tomorrow. I wrote a demo modification to Magnus' tab2wiki at http://ivydene1.co.uk/demo/tab2wiki.php that adds headers and scopes, but it doesn't get used. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, Rexx, I hadn't noticed that. <sarcasm>Fortunately, it's a small table and didn't take any time at all to modify.</sarcasm>. Best regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing on the original article with the same result. Although it was somewhat easier using an external text editor to do the find-and-replace using regular expressions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No; but I've the record itself, in my hand, right now. A Google search should easily authenticate it, if you were to use 'Images'. Sorry, I don't have Editorial abilities enough to add it any other way, into the History. If you know how, and should care too, fine, please go ahead. If not, it's a great pity that others shall be deprived of the information. Ah well, I've tried. At least it's now in the Editorial History, should somebody stumble across it. I hope you do know how too,though. Thanks anyway. Heath St John (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Heath St John: You can usually find a release on Discogs and that shows Moore's release. The picture sleeve can be attested by looking at a sites offering vinyl for sale. I've restored your addition and added two references. The second one shows an image with the "Louisa" misspelling. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the interest, and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.43.239 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks to that reinstatement you made, taking the Reader to Discogs, and the Roger Moore pictures, I noticed the two on there, a few minutes ago, I'd not seen, yesterday: I've., 'Snow White's, and 'Aladdin'. I added those on the R. Moore Page, just now, but don't have the knowledge to give a Reference No., doing for them, what you did for the other single, yesterday; that is, taking people to the Discogs' Site, and the pictures of them, there; could you do that for everyone, please ? Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't trouble to try and help me, with that favour I hoped you might do, as expressed, above. I'm afraid your flattering reinstatement of my research on Discogs, re. Roger Moore's Recording History, was removed again. Anyway, I've added a Discussion in the matter, in the Section about how the Page could be improved, at the bottom, by Edit History; perhaps you;d like to visit that, and add some comments of your own ? I hope so. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please advise OneMoreByte about the issue with their edits? They are a new user and came to my talk page for advice, but as you reverted you're probably in a better position. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I do wish to change back two edits (1) I have found origonal evidence (and will cite) that the Penn Museum was originally founded as the Free Science and Art museum and (2) the main line Protestant organization could not have moved to Houston Hall in mid 1880s as Houston Hall was not finished being built until 1898. I will supply cite for your review. I am ry confident about item (2) and less so re item (1). I look forward to reading if you agree or disagree with me. OneMoreByte (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the url you added here specifically says that, in 1899, "The Museum opens as the Free Museum of Science and Art" after originally opening in 1887. I guess it all depends on what sources you bring. I don't know anything about the Houston Hall thing you're talking about. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to Houston Hall literally 100s of times and know about it and know it was not built until late 1890s so the way I reported reflects such knowledge and the hyperlinks take you to Houston Hall that reflects and supports the info I wrote. OneMoreByte (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Hall (University wof Pennsylvania) OneMoreByte (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Museum was founded in 1887 in College Hall that was built in 1871/1872 and could not move to Houston Hall until after it was built. I did provide citations for what I wrote OneMoreByte (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete John Heisman (for whom the trophy for best college Football player in nation is named due to lack of cite? or for another reason? OneMoreByte (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a question about List of University of Pennsylvania in very first active talk section. Do I need to ask it here? OneMoreByte (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is better, although I think you could have started a new section at the bottom, as that's where I look for new comments. The top-most thread is the oldest, and dates back to 2011. This one is from last September, and I figured that discussion had ended. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied and pasted the question below; "I am not sure this is correct place to ask this question but it appears to be. Mr. Schaeffer is worthy of his own stand alone wikipedia entry. If I add such, would you then object to placement in the List? Of course, I will have to learn how to create a standalone Wikipedia entry and have not yet figured that out." OneMoreByte (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schaeffer was an Olympic athlete and partly responsible for creation of FritoLay and other worthy actions as a lawyer and business person. OneMoreByte (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name Schaeffer sounds familiar, but I don't know what you're talking about, exactly. Was that a name I removed from a Penn article? Which one? When? I can't find any trace in my editing history. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing mistakes I made Kate at night. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1807 Benj. Rush lectures ticket was placed in location so it was within discussion of edifice that only existed from 1801 to 1829 or so. I think it should be out back in original location and ask you to think about what I write above and see if you agree. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OneMoreByte.

First of all, when you add a new entry in the middle of my talk page, I am unlikely to find it right away. I look for new messages at the end, meaning the bottom, as per

WP:BOTTOMPOST

(q.v.).

Secondly, it would help if you included a diff when you start a new topic so that the person you're addressing (or the entire community, if you're on an article's talk page) has some clue of what you are talking about. For example, it seems you are talking about this edit on University of Pennsylvania (notice the links, esp. on "this edit").

Thirdly, I have no idea what you are seeing or complaining about, because on my viewing device, the image of the ticket is two full paragraphs below where I would expect it to be, if it's to accompany the text "Among the classes given in 1807...Rush, etc." The reason is, once again, there are Way Too Many images lining the side of that article. There are SIX images in that section, and only two paragraphs. It can't be aligned unless the viewport is made extremely narrow. But I see you are working in a mobile environment, which would explain your expectations of alignment where desktop users (like myself) see none.

Fourthly, I did not make any significant change to the positioning of the ticket image, I merely moved it out of the middle of the paragraph where, like so many others, it had been carelessly dropped without regard for the visual effect. In this case, it was merely keeping the final sentence from connecting with the rest of its paragraph; other images had been pasted in the middle of sentences. It seems you do not pay much attention to the results of your endeavors, either with the Show preview function nor by simply scrolling through the whole page after publishing. I have now moved the image from the end of the previously broken paragraph to the beginning of it. See if that satisfies you.

I would like to be more friendly and helpful to you, but sometimes I am grumpier than I wish to be. (Today is a grumpy day.) Your complaining to me here about image alignment when you have, yourself, contributed to the impossibility of coordinated illustrations is rather irritating. (Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your openness to discussion!) I wish you would look at the effect you are having on the article and whether we need more material, or a better handling of the material we have. But possibly you have no more idea how the page looks to desktop users than I do about mobile readers. Personally, I can't imaging trying to do anything but the simplest of minor typo corrections of a smart phone. Anything more than that would quickly drive me way past grumpy and into insane/ballistic territory. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that 8mages can only be placed at start of a section. I have been placing photos where they are referenced. Please point me to rules where images must be placed. I thought it was your preference. On phones it looks better to do as I do but did check out a PC recently and now better understand why you make changes but want to know Wikipedia policy. Thanks again for your help. OneMoreByte (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always make my changes from my phone. On my phone it doesn't appear as though I am mangling anything. I only use photos from Wikimedia. I will try to use my PC to see what you are talking about. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though I thanked you I think we should put back in the title: " - track and field" as each and every sentence refers to an Penn athletes l who won medals for track and field events at Olympics. There are other discussions if other sports and Penn athletes who won Olympic Medals. Indeed, perhaps as ruin should read "Track and Field" and info included re other Penn track and field athletes who did not win Olympic medals. What do you think? OneMoreByte (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment corrected for typos and substance: "Though I thanked you I think we may think about putting back in the title: " - track and field" as each and every sentence refers to Penn athletes who won medals for track and field events at Olympics. There are other discussions in the Rugby and Crew sections of other Penn athletes who won Olympic Medals. Indeed, perhaps subsection should read "Track and Field" and not mention Olympics in title and include other Penn track and field athletes who did not win Olympic medals. What do you think?" OneMoreByte (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added truthful edits to two web sites concerning elected officials, supported by citations. JohnFromPickney improperly edited those comments. This violates the rule of consensus and this editor is exercising unilateral control. It also reflects positive political bias trying to overcome truthful content. This politicizes content - as it skews away from one political point of view to another. This, again, renders these supposedly open forums inherently corrupt and calls into question the entire nature of wikipedia as not being true to its own terms and conditions and advertised premise. I'd like the behavior to stop and for my edits to remain unmolested. MichaGuy (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you decided an editor with four prior warnings (all of them recent) for GWAR should go from a final warning to a level 3 warning.[1] I've asked for a block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really expect any improvement in behavior, and in fact, I'm surprised they stopped after only three articles today. I rather expected to throw more warnings, in increasing severity, at them in a short time. My impression is, when some time has passed since the last warnings (as here, from the previous month, 10 days ago), we're supposed to start at the beginning (level 1) again. I didn't start there; it was just too ridiculous. Apparently, I've misunderstood/forgotten how it's supposed to work. Thanks for arranging the block. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You understandably deleted Susan N. Stevenson due to vite being wrong. I tried to fix the cute and provided 2. One appears broken and I ask you to help me delete or did broken cite. OneMoreByte (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't figured out what you're talking about yet, but please pay attention where you are editing on my Talk page; I pulled this text out of the end of 2011 above. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was editing from the article, Delta Air Lines

According to the largest airline by fleet size. The planespotter.com website is kinda confused, and some says better source needed because some of Delta Air Lines fleets has been retired now. And still, I'm confused too about the planespotter.com website and Wikipedia page, Delta Air Lines fleets. Which of these two are understandable or not confused? I'm from the Philippines so please understand my grammar. Thank you! Apple 3002 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also, according to

Hello! As you edit in Delta Air Lines fleet size, please use the calculator and add all in service of Delta Air Lines fleets. If you have any concern, please add the discussion of User talk:Marc Lacoste. Thank you! Corner2002 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. It may not be equitable for you to delete only one name on a list of name for not having a ref, while leaving all the many others on the list.

2. Also, it may be more helpful to the project - especially where the underlying article clearly has supporting refs - to merely tag all (not some ) offending names. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I take the dates from this site http://especiais.g1.globo.com/monitor-da-violencia/2018/mortes-violentas-no-brasil/?_ga=2.236226305.1800895286.1610505734-3509273670.1599836531#/dados-mensais-2020, sorry I dont know how if I put the site correct. Its a Brazilian site that have the numbers since 2011 and the 2020 numbers are 43.892 with the rate for 100.000 habitants is 20.89. Tobetto (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR: apparently in response to this edit. Thanks, Tobetto. The problem is, that page is sourced to UNODC (see ref links in the caption at the top of that table); if you think the figures reported by Globo/G1 are better than the UN's you need to persuade people of that at the Talk page. Saúde, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you edit in Delta Air Lines, please follow in Delta Air Lines fleet Wikipedia page, try to add all current in service fleets. It all total of 764. Corner2002 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I don't particularly care what is on Delta Air Lines fleet or any other articles (although that article did help me find the new source I used for the fleet size at Delta Air Lines); when I edit Delta Air Lines, I try to maintain the integrity of the Delta Air Lines article. Maybe, if I muster the time and interest, I will go over to Delta Air Lines fleet and try to examine and adjust the sources there. But in terms of sourcing for Delta Air Lines, the content of Delta Air Lines fleet is of no importance. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for your kind response! :DD Corner2002 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's me. I was wondering, in Don Mueang International Airport, someone edited it and add historical on Airlines and Destinations section. What do you think? Can I remove it or no? Thanks for your response! Corner2002 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a table would be unique on Wikipedia, and with good reason (see

source. I would delete the entire "Historical" section as an indiscriminate heap of, um, stuff. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah.. I agree with you! Corner2002 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, John! I have noticed your revert action on the page Lil Tecca. I have proposed my opinions on WikiProject Discographies' talk page, the opinion is stated as Point 5. I think that tracks and albums which already have an according page do not need citation, because the refs are already cited in its according page and the citation in discography reduce readability. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing here, Jim. As I also wrote there, I think each page should be independently verifiable. A reader shouldn't have to click around to other pages and search for reference citations there, guessing which ones might support the details they're questioning. Unfortunately, I see a lot of contributors disregarding

this principle. And I don't know how to resolve this disagreement. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, lots of editors ignore the principle. I consider we should add an additional column to the table. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw Red Flavor, adding some pictures in Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminals section. So, is it okay to add more picture or removing it? Thanks for your response! Corner2002 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why you insert in this page the MDY date template in this page. Hi think that this format date is nonsense and not suitable for this page.

Hello, Dr Salvus. I believe you are talking about

MOS:DATERET tells us we should retain the existing format, so I only tried to establish consistency (away from some yyyy-mm-dd), not change anything. If you think we should change it based on "strong national ties to the topic", we can do that, but maybe you should bring it to the Talk page first and see if anyone objects to DMY. I'd certainly have no problem with that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! I’m new to Wikipedia & I don’t believe I have the @username: down because it didn’t seem to link to your profile. I was wondering why what I added to Dan Schneider’s page wouldn’t be considered interesting, also why is a video of him saying it directly not a credible source? Let me know what you think! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elvisisalive95. I don't know what you mean by "link to your profile", so I can't help you fix whatever you feel is broken. Maybe you want {{

Talk:Dan Schneider. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I added Browne to the Mayor section as he is only listed on IS congress section. Why can't you do both? OneMoreByte (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, partly because List of University of Pennsylvania people is already unusably long. Charles Browne is already listed as Congressman, which I consider to be the greater achievement. And what good does it do readers to have multiple identical entries on the same person? How does it help editors to have multiple identical entries with multiple identical (or worse: not quite identical) reference citations? We should be weeding out this page, not adding huge amounts of material into it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you answered me. Is your position the position of Wikipedia rule. Of so I will abide. Personally I find it helpful to see the people in each category as I want to know how m any Penn people served as a Mayor. OneMoreByte (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @OneMoreByte: Well, there's no paragraph (that I know of) that says people can't be listed multiple times on the same page (although I do think that's silly); it's more my interpretation of the guidelines on Wikipedia. Personally, I don't think it's that important to know how many alumni over 2-1/2 centuries became mayor because, for one thing, mayor isn't such a big deal, and for another, mayor of New York or Chicago is one thing, but mayor of Oconto (pop. 4513) or Hampton (pop. 1401) is hardly that notable.

And again, as I said above, the article is already impossibly long. The page length (in bytes) is currently 355,901, which is why it has the {{Very long}} at the top of the page. The longest list on all of Wikipedia is only 423,235 bytes long, and that includes full references and (I believe) counts photographs as well. We should be trying to make it concise, or at least improving the reference citations for the content we already have, not adding to the list or expanding tangential details of the individual entries. (It's enough to know somebody was a baseball player and senator; we don't need to list their batting averages and election results.) Readers can get the details by clicking through to the linked articles.

WP:SIZERULE

says > 100 kB → Almost certainly should be divided, which tells me a list more than three times the size is plenty long, and we should endeavor to shorten the thing, or at least avoid unnecessary increases in length (as with repetition of entries as you suggest).

And remember: we want people visiting Wikipedia with smart phones and lousy connectivity to be able to load, read and enjoy our articles. A huge, cumbersome page works against that goal. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand your position. I disagree in that Those who take time to read the list are alumni who love the details. I happen to be more impressed with those who take on being a Mayor of a small municipality. In many ways it is more pure what they are doing. They are mayors to do public service and not for power or prestige. I have to think more about your and my position to decide whether I wish to debate more. Thanks for taking the time to educate me. OneMoreByte (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being slow on getting import of having prior Wikipedia entries added to list. I am in process of creating my own very 1st Wikipedia entry for Jasper Yeates Brinton. I have done research and have five different sources. I have successfully posted on my Wikipedia sandbox and have tried to post as a draft. I hope to hear back by next week what mistakes I made so I can fix them as I try to do with your comments/changes. OneMoreByte (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a ln entry has multiple roles, can you place the person in each of the roles. For example. Charles Browne was a I S Congressman and a Mayor. I listed him in bother categories with ball info. After you objected I stripped out Mayor in Congress entry and Congress on Mayor entry? Is there an official Wikipedia rule in such? Or is just your preference? Thanks for educating me. OneMoreByte (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't remove mention of the various achievements for the people when they are listed in different sections. The article is a list of notable people, not a list of separate achievements by alumni. See my more detailed answer in the pre-existing thread just above. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting adds to persons lists (whose article clearly show they belong), rather than adding a cite needed ref? Especially, when the person is not a living person? I wonder if that improves the project. --2603:7000:2143:8500:10E7:42F0:ACD8:5EF5 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's my experience that a citation needed tag will stay around forever. It's ugly, and so its presence doesn't improve the project. On the other hand, when somebody adds a name but gets reverted right away, then that editor may be still around, may notice the reversion, and may, then, immediately add the needed reference. Which does help the page in question and therefore the project. I guess you're talking about an article like List of people from California, and the happy outcome is that your response was to re-add the entry, with a ref, exactly the great behavior I was hoping for. Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think its not proper behavior, to treat longstanding uncited material better than new text. That is perhaps more deserving - as it has a cite in the article itself. I just happened to see that that was deleted, but don't generally see what happens w my old edits. Also, when bored, I look for things like "uncited" to address them, by a search. To address them one way or another. I just did that today with a dozen articles (you can see some in my current edit history - just look for "d" per "tag"). That may happen more than you realize. Also, in the list area, as you probably know practice and rules are diverging greatly. The only way you will get practice to shift is I think to delete all uncited people in the lists. Which would be fair - you would not be discriminating unfairly, and against those where people had the least time to fix them. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20B8:E841:C518:EB06 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you seem really experienced, and rule oriented. I have a question. I have been running into people these days, sometimes one on a page, sometimes more, that do not seem to be inclined to follow rules as written. But just make up their own. Or say their judgment is, for example, to tag an article as x, when I dont think it is subjectively. How best to address this, when they are unyielding? Especially when they seem to call in fellow friends to support them - but I think an objective view would be otherwise? It's a real annoyance, at best. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20B8:E841:C518:EB06 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"exactly the great behavior I was hoping for"

Thank you for quality work for tables, discographies, filmographies, telling people what they must, must, must do, for promoting accessibility where you see it missing, for thinking "naawww, let's avoid rude stereotypes", - John, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

Thanks, Gerda, I appreciate this, and your other work, too! Alles Gute und weiter so! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Es gibt viel zu tun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if you have continuously proposed cancellation because I also had the article

No, no, no. I proposed once the withdrawal of your request for Peer Review

edit summaries as I tried to correct your errors. (There was another leftover template, which I missed, and which GamerPro64 kindly deleted for us

.)

I repeatedly reverted your edits regarding further PR requests for

instructions

. I am sorry to say this, but you seem genuinely incapable of following any of the procedural instructions here on English Wikipedia.

I have been trying to clean up after you, although it is hard to keep up, and I have tried to educate you as to your mistakes, but there are so many, and I have become tired of it. It does not seem as though you are learning anything. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for causing you problems. Thanks for explaining the errors. Believe me, I was doing the procedures correctly but suddenly my cell phone battery ran out. I understood everything I should have done

talk) 06:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not a question of opinion; it's a matter of the rules of English. Sentences get periods as terminal punctuation. And I have fixed that other article, which also had it wrong; thanks for the pointer. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since last time you weren't clear, could you give me the list again of the reasons why

I have to draw a deep breath before I start, because I see you are completely missing the point, and missing it so thoroughly and adamantly, that I wonder if you will make much progress here.

I am not the person who maintains The Big List of reasons some article didn't make FL.

your Talk

, the reasons any list is promoted or not promoted are aggregated in the FLC nominations. They accumulate from all the reviewers who come to look at a nominated page. You are the person as nominator who should look at the reviewers' notes and decide if or how you want to adapt the article in response.

Now, here's the big thing. Bilorv specifically advised you not to continue to ignore editors' feedback. That was less than an hour ago. And now you have posted here, asking for the FL reasons (which I don't have), totally ignoring Bilorv's feedback. This is not the approach which leads to success.

I strongly, fervently, urgently, adamantly and emphatically (whichever terms translate to Italian most clearly) urge you to confine yourself to reading our articles (presumably about football, or Italy, or Italian football, or sport) and noticing how they are written, looking for and correcting spelling errors, adding or improving references to

reliable sources

where you can, and, as you go, pay attention to the feedback you get. Your changes may get reverted; find out why. You may get messaged on your Talk page; be civil and interact with the other editors. You may not understand some argument or some process; ask politely what was meant. The important thing, I think, is that you learn to listen, as that's a key part of communication, critical to the collaborative process.

Thanks for behaving in such a calm way in all your contributions I have seen so far. Many others could learn from your example! I hope you will take my comments here in the constructive way I have intended them. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with John here

User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures where he explained the process that goes into featured content including the steps that need to be followed. Dr Salvus, if you're not going to worry about featured content until December (in your own words. I suggest we need a longer timeline personally), you do not need to understand now why your article didn't make it, but if you have questions after reading the feedback because something isn't clear, you can ask the person who reviewed it. That was not me, John or Bilorv, although I'm happy to try and answer questions about other areas if I can. If you go anywhere near the featured content, which I would not advise, I think you should just observe and see what content gets promoted and what doesn't and learn from those. As John said, work on content without regard to whether it is promoted. Learn what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and what isn't. You've made some good AfD noms in working with Spiderone on Italian footy. Keep doing that. Featured content is important to wikipedia, but not every editor needs to work on it. You, specifically, do not need to work on it. StarM 01:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Salvus 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Which is what lead to the ANI report. A certain degree of skillset is required to edit the English wikipedia and you may not have that yet. That's OK. I certainly can't say more than I cani non mangiano il cioccolato in Italian (thanks Duolingo), so I couldn't edit there. StarM 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Salvus 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Dr Salvus: you're welcome to edit here. You said that you struggle to follow the information provided due to English being your second language. If that's the case and you continue to persist with attempting areas where you struggle, and if you don't follow the guidance given by many, many editors, you will likely end up back at WP:ANI and blocked. StarM 16:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Salvus 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thanks for the note. I'm sorry you're feeling discouraged and I hope you do not feel we chased you away with pitchforks and torches. Do come back when you're ready, and just take it slowly for a while. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This year's Coppa Italia final will be played in Reggio Emilia. But perhaps it is better to add this detail after the final for many reasons.

I see the matter you raised has been handled by someone who was online at the time. Please always feel free to reach out as I'm happy to help. I would have reacted the same if I'd seen it. StarM 12:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Star. Also mailed another admin who was more recently active but I had no idea what admins were supposed to do. Now I see (some of it). Be well! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. I am sitting here chortling – I hadn't realized that "bar" was just a bad translation of "beam" so I was conjuring up quite different pictures of (very drunk) people dragging themselves onto the bar, presumably from the floor ... sheesh. Makes a lot more sense now. Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I pictured the kind of thing guys mount in a doorway of their apartment so they can do chin-ups and inversion boot exercises. That didn't quite mesh either. Happy editing,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, those! I had forgotten those. And then their friend puts a video on social media in which they collapse suddenly. Gosh. Thanks for another bizarre image! Cheers and happy editing to you too DBaK (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question on the Talkpage of the "Native Americans of the United States" Wikipedia page and you ignored my response. Why? Epictrex (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ignore what I wrote? I said I didn't know about the topic, and I still don't. And I am not in a position to evaluate books I do not have next to me and check citations I can't find online about a topic in which I am not well-educated. In any case, I'm just a volunteer here and turn my limited attention to topics in unpredictable ways. You should not expect that your fellow editors drop what they're doing to respond to you. And I certainly didn't ignore your response; in fact, I reformatted it to make it more useful.

Be patient; somebody may come along and respond at any minute. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I said that you ignored me. I misspoke. I misunderstood. I do understand what you are saying, and I do understand that people get busy. Also, I know that these sources aren't the most accessible. Also I did not ignore what you wrote, since I answered your question with those two citations. Again, I am sorry for my false accusation of you ignoring me and my choice of words. I misspoke and I misunderstood the situation. Have a good day. -Epictrex

I noticed you deleted info I recently added to the page. Here are links to pre-orders for the items I added that you deleted on various toy ordering websites. They are all reputable and reliable sources.

Vintage Collection Death Star Droid https://www.walmart.com/ip/Star-Wars-Vintage-Collection-Death-Star-Droid-Lucasfilm-First-50-Years-Collectible-Figure/409549461

Vintage Collection Luke Skywalker (Endor) https://www.walmart.com/ip/Star-Wars-Vintage-Collection-Luke-Skywalker-Endor-Lucasfilm-First-50-Years-Action-Figure/853939177

Vintage Collection Tusken Raider https://www.walmart.com/ip/Star-Wars-The-Vintage-Collection-Tusken-Raider-Lucasfilm-First-50-Years-Collectible-Figure/726042601

Vintage Collection pre-orders https://www.banthaskull.com/story/news-may-the-fourth-entertainment-earth-preorders-are-live

Vintage Collection ARC Trooper Echo https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/Product/VariationDetails/147346 https://www.entertainmentearth.com/p

Vintage Collection Offworld Jawa https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/Product/VariationDetails/147343 https://www.entertainmentearth.com/product/star-wars-the-vintage-collection-offworld-jawa-arvala7-3-34inch-action-figure/hsf1894

Official announcement https://www.banthaskull.com/story/news-official-images-hasbro-star-wars-may-the-fourth-fan-first-tuesday

Official live-stream video from Hasbro themselves regarding the announced items you deleted https://youtube/v_F177wQZOY — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBrett78 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarthBrett78, thanks for responding to my note. In the future, please sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~). I have added a signature for you above.

I'm not sure how reliable these sources are for use at

sources you can find to re-add the content I've removed. Further discussion about sourcing for that article should occur there, at its talk page. Regards — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I saw your talk page comments in In The End: There's Always a Disney God. Agreeing to what you said prior to the recent edit request, I would suggest draftifying the page while asking to make it vet through AFC as its almost obvious COI, also the language of the article is promotional where the notability of the mini series is questionable. I didn't draftify it on my own as I noticed you have taken multiple actions on the page and an edit request is there after some failed attempt to remove the COI tag. But since the page isn't reviewed by any NPP, draftification would be the right thing to do, if you ask me. Stay Safe. Chirota (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the page was rejected once in AfC once. Chirota (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Chirota. I've been wondering what to do about that article as it seemed almost non-notable to me, and is an obvious COI case. The notability I was willing to grant it was based on the claim that it was Emmy-nominated, which, it turns out, it never really was (according to the one source). The thing is, I don't know how to get it draftified (oh, look: there's

WP:DRAFTIFY

!). Okay, I've got some reading to do.

And as for the AfC: that's a different version and (for

some reason) was started two weeks after she created the current article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

No Problem. The series may be notable, but its better to leave that to be judged by an AFC reviewer when it is a case of obvious COI. If you are finding trouble getting it done, I can do it. For draftification,

WP:DRAFTIFY. Chirota (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Not a problem, Dr Salvus, I accept your apology and hope everything is going better for you now. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you are fine with previous entries (which is 99% of the page) being unsourced? I constantly see it on these list of people pages and it's highly hypocritical to me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dissident, thanks for asking. You are no doubt talking about List of people from California‎. In fact, I am very much not fine with previous entries being unsourced. I have only a limited amount of time to devote to Wikipedia and I almost never get around to sourcing lists like this (even much, much shorter ones). I would (secretly! Shhh!) like to go and delete every unsourced name from this list (and the one for Houston, the one for Atlanta, etc.) and then insist that each and every readdition be properly, reliably sourced or suffer immediate reversion. Realistically, though, I'm sure I'd never get away with that.

So we have many big lists, mostly unsourced, about which I can do little. Except: reject new additions of unsourced content, in the hopes that the person who just added whatever-it-was will still be around, will quickly notice that their edit wasn't accepted (and see and understand why), then re-add the material with citations. In this case it seems to have worked. And I thank you for your (extra) effort! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnFromPinckney, fair enough and thanks for responding. It wouldn't have been reverted at all if I had simply added the citations in the first place. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But I think we both know: sometimes we get sloppy around here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting my progress i did.

The Albanian mens did qualify three times for the Eueopean Championship and once for the World Cup in 1962 stop doing this thats unfair me as an Albanian i know more about sports then you as an Australian. Xonilatifi25 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm as much an Albanian as I am an Australian. And I didn't know your nationality (nor is it important).

I'm sorry about reverting your work, but it can't be used here if it's not

reliable sources for what you want to add, then we'll be making progress. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Stop doing it without proving me or wikipedia wrong. Xonilatifi25 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This and the previous thread are referring to

verifiable. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The source I've indicated is unnecessary. The source 2 will update the final soon

Sorry, Salvo, I don't know what you mean. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The match is over and Juve won 2-1 against Atalanta. Since this is a list, I don't think it's necessary to include the source I listed in the page history. Source #2 is a soccer site and I used that source for the listing. Unfortunately , the site I pointed you to has not yet updated the result of the final. The solution could be the following: wait for the source to update the result.

Salvus 21:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Being a list doesn't mean it shouldn't be properly sourced. Remember, the reviewers were demanding reference citations from you earlier during the FL work. Of course a source is necessary. So yes, the right solution is as you say: wait. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now

Salvus 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that's the way it should be. Remember, we're in

no hurry

here. If there are no sources beyond what you saw on television, it's not right to add it. But all is well now, so no worries.

And congratulations; you must be very happy about Juventus winning! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pleas stop controlling me all the time. We need to agree on one term if you cant deny the success Albania have had dont stop deleting posts and Albania won the Balkan youtu Championship an important championship twice but i may see your racism towards Albania it still dosent change the success they have as an Sporting nation and you cant deny that period!! Xonilatifi25 (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can deny anything that doesn't have adequate

Sports in Albania or anywhere else) will probably be kept; if you don't, please don't add anything. It's that simple. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Xonilatifi25 please use reliable sources and stop personalizing content disputes, or you will be blocked. If the content is not sourced, it will be removed. You are treading perilously close to a partial block from that page. StarM 14:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quite not understand why you tag an User that i am not. I understand the rules. But also give others a chance to have their say , that's make Wikipedia a good page and not what you guys do to delete information after information, Albania indeed needs more information aswell as every other page in Wikipedia actually.

I understand the rules no content without sources and no discussions.

I wish you happy christmas and a good new year. Prishtinë25 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Egzon but his Brother editing in Wikipedia after i got blocked too i understand and want to apologize but i indeed love the sport of Albania and like to include some information as most pages aren't up to date in my opinion. Prishtinë25 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember me? The one that you reversed the changes in Survivalcraft, First, The game is in C# and "No Engine", Engine was apparently created from scratch, Sources? Tell me about "Game is writen in Java" sources, but if you want sources, you have to get the source code of the game with dnspy, I ALREADY TRUSTED THIS PAGE, BUT IT WAS WRONG, In a nutshell, misinformation, And the other changes were clear that it was theories, I seem to be giving trouble, but all I said are facts, Sorry about anything, I'm new in Wikipedia Rafael831 (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title got the wrong translation, but just ignore it Rafael831 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put a comment in my edit on List of cover versions of Led Zeppelin songs referring to the Hot 100, which lists the appropriate songwriting credits in the respective entries for the 1987 version. Any suggestions on how to apply that? I'm not sure linking to the Hot 100 chart(s) would be the right thing to do. Mapsax (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about

reliable source. Mentioning "per Billboard Hot 100" in a hidden HTML comment doesn't qualify; firstly, readers don't see HTML comments, and I think mobile editors (forced to use Visual Editor, if I'm not mistaken) never see them either. Secondly, "per Billboard Hot 100" is extremely vague; how can anyone check that source to verify the cover? A magazine issue, date, page number, etc., would be the minimum for a hard copy, and if an online source is used, I'd expect a valid URL (along with the other citation info). If you don't have a working URL (and from 1987, knowing Billboard, you probably don't), then info from a paper magazine is what you'd need. But again, if the band is non-notable, the ref citations don't really matter. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your explanation. First, there is a working URL for just about every Hot 100 via American Radio History, which I thought was likely common knowledge among WP editors who edit popular music pages, but apparently not – I should have heeded

WP:OTHER

, there are other entries in the article for bands without their own articles; the intro says "Only officially released recordings by notable artists are included – the list does not include bootleg or unrecorded live performances, or any unreleased demo recordings", implying that if it's not a demo or live only that it's permissible.

I won't re-revert but I will put a note on the article's talk page with my live sources. I usually do that in cases like this but I thought I had sufficient info. Mapsax (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the US)". I don't see a problem with the wording of "the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia." in my edit. The statement excludes any back and forth about US vs U.S. and I see no harm in using it. Almost all of the instances in the article use the format "U.S." Cuprum17 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cuprum. In your

WP:US

. In fact, the affected sentence ended and a war between an alliance of the U.S., the UK and Russia against the "Chinese Hegemony". Because we're talking about the UK, we have to talk about the US, not the U.S.

After my manual reversion (in which I corrected 23 instances of "U.S." to "US", which means, of course, that none of the instances in the article use U.S., except for the references to one book which is apparently titled thusly), your next edit appeared to change all or some of the "US" back to "U.S." I have to admit, that I sort of stopped scanning the diff after the first two changes, so I overlooked your changes to the line about and a war between an alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia against the "Chinese Hegemony" and just reflexively reverted. Sorry about that.

I'm glad you took my links to heart and read MOS:US. One problem here is that the bit you changed (→ United States) isn't really the first mention, although I'd accept that that might not matter here, as the MOS is talking about the sentence with the list (eerily similar to the model!). If you want to change that one sentence again, go ahead, I won't revert that. We don't otherwise use "UK" or "USSR" in the article, but we do have several instances of "UK" in the refs, so I would prefer that we stay with "US" over "U.S." throughout. Cheers,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with using one form over another and was only trying to bring some uniformity to the article. If you prefer to use US throughout the article then by all means do so. I will change the one sentence to read "the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia." Although the abbreviation "UK" is correct, I am thinking there might be that some of the readership, especially in the United States, that might not know that "UK" stands for United Kingdom. Us Yanks can be somewhat insular when it comes to the world view. Thank you for the polite discourse; that isn't always the case on Wikipedia. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate you coming by to ask and to alert me to my oversight. I look forward to crossing paths (as opposed to, say, swords) with you again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that the guidelines of

I will stop posting on your talk page if requested here. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't in any way disagree with your tagging of List of airports under construction for more references. But I would just like to point out that references to blue-wikilinks that take a reader to notable articles may not need any reference if it's obvious by following that link that it merits being included in that List of airports under construction. Yes, references are of course helpful, but are only essential for red-linked articles where notability is assumed, but where no article yet exists. You are, of course, free to delete any such unsubstantiated red linked names, especially as this page has been plagued by a now-blocked editor who repeatedly failed to explain their edits or to include any sources. Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick. Thanks for your input. I know what you mean and I might well be the only Wikipedian who thinks this way, but I've always believed each page should be independently verifiable. There's really no telling at this page what's going on over at that page, if you know what I mean. I happen to watch pages like List of people from Atlanta or List of people from Michigan, where somebody adds a bluelinked name, but even at the other article there's no source for them being from the place.

Well, I'm poking a little at that airports list to see what I can verify or improve, but if somebody removes the more-refs tag I probably won't quibble. But I must say the idea of listing airports under renovation seems really weird; I have rarely travelled through an airport that wasn't being expanded/remodelled/renovated. :-P — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the article itself - I got sucked in as an an admin having to deal with one good faith, but somewhat obsessive and rather disruptive editor (HeeheeYogen8), so I know nothing about the subject itself. Yes, I agree that it's brilliant and always better to have a reference for each list entry if you can, but I'd only remove such a link if it wasn't noted in the main article - often a problem with 'Notable alumni' listed in schools and colleges. I reckon once you've got the redlinks out you or another editor could remove that tag - I shalln't get involved in that, though. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are involving in editing Cleveland-related articles. Could you possibly keep an eye on the article about the Cuyahoga River, given some recent edits there? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:80A:F000:6D42:3135:A6AA:A429 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert, that was a mistake. Editor2020 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No prob; we all make'em. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, you just have to go to Tashelhit wikipedia and u will notice that it has a script convertor Latin <=> Tifinagh --AyourAchtouk (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are doubtless referring to your last edit on List of Wikipedias. I had, in fact, already gone to shi:Tasna_Tamzwarut, but could not find "Tfngh" on that page, nor did I recognize "Tashelhit" anywhere. It turns out, the correct code is "Tfng", and so I have added that to the list page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    \,V,/
     \ /
      "

RecycledHeroin (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might not be aware that there is

The person who reported those accounts was blocked for, ironically, evading his own block. Other editors have also raised some issues regarding the behavior of those accounts. What else could be done?

LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. I Know the information that's bern deleted is correct. The picture of the publication on the 'Fantastic Fiction' website; its history of publication by 'Robett Hale Publishers'; even a review of it, on 'Goodreads', is available. In the interests of promoting truthful knowledge; and, in a spirit of co-operation between Wikipedia enthusisats, would you then, please, helo me to do what I, for the present, cannot yet do, even tjough I'm trying to learn, which is to create a Reference Number for it, next to the original location at the end of the article, in order for it not to be lost ?; as the information is accurate, its not invention on my part, and I'm trying to learn. Heath St John (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Assuming there are likely to be other calls upon your time, before giving others the chance to learn from the original post again by including it, of course I'll leave it a little while. Regards. Heath St John (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heath. I presume you are talking about

Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup

(depending on which editor you use; I'm guessing you use VisualEditor).

Well, that should get you started (started going crazy, that is). Only you know what sources you want to use, so you will have to try to match them with the guidance provided at, say, Wikipedia:Citing sources. Try your hand and if you need help, ask. And if you get it a bit wrong, don't worry; somebody (me, maybe) will come along and fix it or revert the thing altogether. It's a wiki! Good luck, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to learn how to do it. Heath St John (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perhaps that you dislike seeing tweets used as citations, hence the "let's not". Nobody is suggesting that an article should ever have tweets used as the citation for big claims, however, per

Sorry, Ss112, but I disagree, and I'd like to persuade you to hold back with such additions. IP editors and other registered editors who can't adhere to

WP:V is really a thing, and we take it seriously here. I don't see the necessity of adding a damned tweet as our best RS, when soon (this week?), Billboard will publish the info in a more dependable form (unless they decide to rework their website yet again :-P ). And as for argument about User:ThesePicklesLoveSosa doing something wrong, I'll point out that they are indefinitely blocked. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the only reason ThesePicklesLoveSosa is indefinitely blocked is because I kept on reporting them when they would add unsourced information. The problem here is that editors do not revert IP and other editors when they add such peaks. They either presume they're covered by the column header citation (not bothering to check), or they just don't care. I see it all the time. The "necessity" comes from negating said widespread unsourced peak problem I have witnessed for years from editors. I still warn them with revert summaries and talk-page warnings and yet they still come back. So the best solution here is to use a less-desirable source for the interim. That's the only reason I use it. If Lil Tecca were a more high-profile act like say Dua Lipa, I guarantee that information would be added unsourced five, six times throughout the day until Billboard updates even if it were reverted every time. Ss112 01:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know what you mean, believe me. I used to tend Rihanna articles pretty closely until I had to blow my brains out and hang myself. I try not to care so much anymore as I lack the time, energy and sanity. I'm sure I'm biased against Twitter as I associate it with triviality and superficiality combined with unreliability, inexactitude and inaccuracy, unbelievability, self-aggrandizement, outright lying, and the previous US president. Actually, I could have just mentioned that last item and spared us the redundancy.

Well, I'd prefer to see a Billboard URL or even a BB paper magazine (if they even still make those) cited, but I won't revert your tweet-citations, for reasons you've nicely explained here. And while you're here, I do appreciate (and have long appreciated) your work on our music articles. Keep up the good work (and your sanity)! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Is it "...10 months ago" or "...a few minutes ago last". You linked my article move, to "a few minutes ago last". Just asking you to repair the confusion. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably talking about

Talk:Deputy prime minister of Canada#Requested move 22 August 2021

. I do not think I can repair the confusion, because it seems to be getting worse. Nowhere on that page do I find the phrase "a few minutes ago last". Both of your moves, and the one by Joeyconnick which preceded them, occurred 10 months ago. I will now point to the specific diffs so that you might be able to understand:

Joeyconnick moved Deputy Prime Minister of Canada to Deputy prime minister of Canada at 10:08, 24 October 2020

You moved Deputy prime minister of Canada to Deputy Prime minister of Canada at 02:51, 30 October 2020

You moved Deputy Prime minister of Canada to Deputy prime minister of Canada at 02:59, 30 October 2020

This was all 10 months ago (give or take). Joeyconnick changed to sentence case per

MOS:JOBTITLE. A few days later, you changed it to half-sentence case, which you didn't want, and 8 minutes later changed it back to Joeyconnick's title, which is also the current title. That all happened about 10 months ago. I don't know what else I can tell you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Proof read your 9:36 post at that discussion, per my request. It's confusing & misleading. In the beginning of it, you're (correctly) saying "10 months ago", but at the end of it, you've mistakenly named the link "..a few minutes later". GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have proofread that one edit. I have scanned the section and searched the entire page. While the page contains five instances of the word "last" (one in a Twinkle tab and one in the "last edited" blurb at the bottom of the page), I find none of them to be anywhere in that entire section. None written by me, in any of my posts, and none by any other contributor. What I wrote at the end of my 09:36 post was ...current title yourself a few minutes later. The link "in October" earlier in that sentence points to where you clearly noticed the move at 02:51, 30 October 2020, and the link "a few minutes later" points to where you moved it to the current title yourself at 02:59, 30 October 2020, a few minutes later. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talkin' about.

• There's

  no requirement for uncontroversial moves. The move occurred 10 months ago, and nobody has complained before this. Why are you just complaining now? You clearly noticed the move in October, and you even moved it to the current title yourself a few minutes later. And BTW, there's no such word as "Irregardless". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: the link you give should read "10 months ago", not "a few minutes later". GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not. Did you read my explanation above? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously a disconnect between how you & I are reading your post. We'll leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your interpretation of the RFC-in-question's closure & judgement is accurate? Why then is Tartan357, challenging it. If (for example) the closing editor's judgement says go Blue & Tartan357 supports go blue. Why then is Tartan357 challenging the closure. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably talking about this discussion at AN. The closer's assessment of consensus is not what I'm questioning (although some have, reasonably); I'm questioning their determination of the status quo. For Tartan's reasoning you should ask Tartan. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a recent situation. I've no intentions of contacing Tartan. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Will you please observe all the other Democratic, Republican etc political party national conventions. In the infobox, they all use only the last names of the prez & vice prez nominees & list then below the word Nominees. IF you disagree with that long-established style, then please do, open up a RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, I will not observe all the other Democratic, Republican etc political party national conventions as I have better things to do with my time. Will you please give me a hint what article(s) you are talking about when you come to my page? Presumably you are referring to

edit summary; but with fewer than 370,000 edits you are probably too new to realize that it is basic common courtesy to explain your edits to other editors. And finally, I do not want to open yet another RfC; there are far too many of those things going on as a substitute for simple cooperation. If you EXPLAIN what the hell you're doing (like mentioning supposed "long-established style"), other editors won't necessarily feel the need to revert you, and you won't have to revert their reversions. Cut the drama; just do your work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Hello JohnFromPinckney. I saw your comment on another admin's talk page. It looks like this move to lower-case will need a full move discussion. Some of your changes have been reverted by another editor, as you can see in the history. It is unclear whether 'County-Designated Highways in Michigan' is a proper name, as opposed to a WP-constructed concept. I searched for official uses of the all-caps phrase but didn't find any. Discussion should occur. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you undid my revision. Is Google not a reliable source for Dow Jones charts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshpinar (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, and what are you talking about?

Please remember to sign your talk page contributions with four tildes (~~~~). I've added a signature for you, above.

Please mention (preferably with a link) whatever article you intend to discuss. I'm assuming you mean to discuss Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Um, "my revision"?

I undo a lot of revisions, and it's hard to know which one some random editor is talking about. I guess you are referring to my reversion of your edit. At Help:Diff there is information about how to point to specific revisions ("diffs"), especially the section Linking to a diff.

"Reliable" vs "unsourced

If you look more closely at

reliability

(but I will).

Edit summary vs. actual citation

While your edit did indeed include a big, ugly URL to a Google search, that is very different from including a proper reference citation in the article. How can a reader on the page verify the information based on a hint of a reference to a pointer you have hidden in an edit summary?

There is nothing reliable about a "source" that begins with "www.google.com/search". I frankly ignored that 150-character string of semi-random stuff, and did not bother to copy and paste that unwieldy thing into my browser's address bar.

Further, when you do add URLs anywhere, please try to simplify them; information about your personal browser or computer's character set is of no interest to the rest of the world. The reduced URL https://www.google.com/search?q=dow+jones&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS769US769 works just as well; in fact, https://www.google.com/search?q=dow+jones seems to get me the exact same results. Try trimming the "&parameter=value" stuff at the ends of URLs and see if they yield equivalent results; you can save a lot of confusion about meaningless details that way.

When I do go to the URL you mentioned, I do not go to an article, webpage, PDF file, etc. I go to a

verifiable

.

Where did you get 19,173.98?

And here we come to the central question: even knowing that I am looking for the number 19,173.98 as a low on March 20, I don't see it. The chart that I get (and which may well be different for you, whever you are, whenever you happen to do the search) shows me "52-wk low: 26,143.77". That's a higher number than the 19,173.98 you added.

If somebody, somewhere, has written about that low figure, and mentioned the date, and ascribed it to the lockdown, then use that source. If nobody has, then we shouldn't add the claim.

In other words, and to explicitly answer your question, Jshpinar, Google search is not a reliable source for Dow Jones charts. In fact, it's not a reliable source for anything (although we do use Google Books links an awful lot). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 20, 2020 was more than 52 weeks ago so if you to the 5 year section you'll find it as the lowest point at the amount that I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshpinar (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: Please remember to sign your talk page contributions with four tildes (~~~~). I've added a signature for you, again.

Ah, yes, I see that now. Sorry. I had concentrated on the diff itself and overlooked the year that was already there. Still, a reference citation (which you haven't provided) should point readers to the exact point of the source. The URL (and the other details) would need to be accompanied with the instructions to "click on '5Y', then move your cursor over the lowest point on the graph", or similar. Worse, not everybody can do that (I don't know how our many smartphone users would check those values), and the source is guaranteed to become useless on March 21, 2025.

Again, if some reliable and more stable source has written about this, use that source. Otherwise, leave it out. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page back again.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! "The page". I think the lowercase version of List of county-designated highways in Michigan is correct, as I haven't seen convincing evidence from authoritative sources that County-Designated Highways is some official (uppercase) thing, even if only in Michigan. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an apology to you and other Wikipedia editors for my editing-after-bedtime posts last night, but I wanted to come to your Talk page and offer you a personal apology. If you go to my user page, the last user box reveals that I suffer from insomnia. As you might expect, I must take medication for the chronic condition and it is immensely unwise to post in a public place after that medication has been taken. I broke that rule last night thinking I was fine, but clearly, I was not. I hope you were not offended by any comments I made, and know that my lame attempt at humor was not intended to offend you or anyone. It was a mistake that will never happen again. I am a very private person and always try to conduct myself with the highest level of professionalism, but I am human and I made a mistake. Having spent time today researching your Wikipedia contributions, I can honestly say I am a fan and hope you will accept my apology. I look forward to working with you again. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No apology was actually necessary, MarydaleEd, but yours is accepted nonetheless. Thank you for your kind words and thoughtfulness. I wish you good health as well. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Movement for a People's Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

. You have been a significant contributor to it, thus why I am notifying you.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement for a People's Party 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.

SecretName101 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of errors like those on the page has bothered me for a while but it seemed like so much work to fix it – thank you so much for doing all that! It's way better now. One small thing though, per

Thanks for noticing, and for your kind words. And yes, it was a lot of work! As I'm sure you realize, the italics are there because of the Dutch, in addition to the quotation marks because they're song titles. I couldn't find any better guidance for the specific case of foreign-language song titles, but now, as I type this, I see that last sentence at the end of MOS:MINORWORK and think, "oh, crap!", and I now realize I have to go back and fix a few other articles I've "improved" in recent weeks.

Thanks also, Jochem, for de-capitalizing all those titles and the other work you did there. I know that was a large amount of work itself! Best regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Changing the italics didn't take that long actually, all it took as a slightly advanced search & replace. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a "more" notification from this article. The summary for this particular movie should probably not be expanded. Link Thank you. Missbellanash (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, OK. That seems to have nothing to do with me; I removed 262 bytes from the plot section (mostly just copy-editing) on 6 October, 2 days before IP 109.79.73.154 tagged it with {{more plot}}, per their explanation at the talk page. Happy editing,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I am confused, this is what I just read.

WP:FILMPLOT

recommends a plot section of 400-700 words.

The plot section has been tagged for being as too long for years, but despite a little over 700 words and being tagged for being too long someone made it even longer, expanding it to over 800 words.[1] Another editor made a good faith effort to rewrite the plot summary, severely shortening it[2] down to a mere 263 words which is frankly too short. I hesitate to restore the long version but a slightly overlong plot section with a little too much detail is more helpful to readers than a too short plot section with not enough information. -- 109.78.196.169 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about all that, I just removed the more notice & was letting you know I did it, does AnomieBot not belong to you? If you're good, I'm good... confused. Bye, Missbellanash (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, AnomieBOT is operated by Anomie; I have nothing to do with it, and I can't see why you would suppose that I did. What AnomieBOT generally does is add dates to tags (like the {{More plot}} template) after human editors have added undated tags. That's what happened at Wild Things: Foursome in this edit, which you inexplicably reverted, and (therefore) again in this one. You did not, in fact, remove a "more" notification, as you said above, you merely removed the date that belongs with it. But this is not only confusing, but also unnecessary; the tagging (and bot-dating) happened on the 8th of October, you reverted three days later, you posted here 8 days after that, and now it's another 8 days later. And it doesn't matter at all (and hasn't ever, really). So we're good; let's move on. Happy editing,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Thanks, but I'm not. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where you said after you have spent some more time learning how English WP works, I did not say "and after you have spent some more time learning how English works, too". I really try not to criticize the English of nonnative speakers (native speakers are fair game, though) since a loss of confidence means they'll probably never be able to improve. EEng 16:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EEng. I'm confused by your comment here. I do not think you're heartless, nor did I think you (or anyone else at that discussion) say anything about our colleague learning how English works. I was talking about how English WP works (bold added here). You said yourself that our colleague had almost zero experience here, which is what I meant, too. Maybe I should have written out "Wikipedia"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JohnFromPickney. Thanks for your indentation fixes on

that I edit - there is no need to consult - but the article really needs more refs JarrahTree 10:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your help. I was added some info to

I do it according to his Persian article: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملیجک_دوم

Kidsonthemoon (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The initials are something the author himself uses. See also the following mentions in the Huffington Post and National Endowment for Democracy. Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of this in the target article, so we ought not point to it from the DAB page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always indeed attack users , when they trey to change articles in Sport in Albania. People try to improve Wikipedia in general. I see Sport in Greece or Sport in Serbia where their is tons of information included even useless information. And their is nobody complaining anything.

2. I am not an sock account and i dont know why you including that in fact.. When their is no evidence what so ever. Stop being so impolite in fact as it dose not make you seen as an good faith wikipedian.

3. Sport in Albania needs more information included in fact and me being an passionate albanian sports fan know more about it then you... 185.109.153.66 (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so if you're not a sock, how do you know that someone "always" attacks users? JFP, I logged this in the appropriate location. Star Mississippi 14:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me again, what's the reason for this sort of edit? Is it for the mobile app, or what?Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed at

MOS:INDENTGAP, both part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility), the jumping between bulleted lists (on WP talk pages via "*") and definitions (on WP talk pages via ":") causes extra HTML to be generated. Most of us usually don't see that, so it would be only a problem of superfluous code, but it's unclear markup, which makes it quite tedious for those who use screen readers

.

The result is code like:

...being correct matters a good deal. 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>

<dl><dd><dl><dd>N.B. for comparison...

rather than:

...being correct matters a good deal. 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd>

<dd>N.B. for comparison...

Screen readers read out the multiple ends of definition lists then start up reading the multiple beginnings of the nested lists which follow. The lower version (part of Special:Diff/1061382940my change, which you reverted) has fewer of these stop-stop-stop-start-start signals. I don't think mobile users are particularly affected, per se.

The addition of extra indentations (e.g., replying to a 2nd-level comment :: with, say, five colons :::::), which I have also seen you do, though less often than jumping list types, make it harder to discern the threads and follow the conversation (see

WP:THREAD at Help:Talk pages

). I may be too sensitive on this one but I find it distracting as hell, and this one is visible to all, screen reader-users and non-users alike.

Thanks for asking, Herostratus. I hope my edit summary wasn't too snarky, but I have been trying to call attention to this not-widely-enough-known situation, for educational reasons. I'm hoping to get other editors more attentive to how they post, so I don't have to (heh: "have to") refactor others' comments. Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right I see your point about screen readers, and thanks for the comprehensive response. A little extra HTML doesn't matter generally, and I believe editors are encourage to not worry about stuff to that level of detail. But if it effects a screen reader, that's important. but then it sounds like screen readers don't work very well yet if they can't pass over HTML tags, so it is what it is. There's a limit to how much we can tie ourselves in knots to handle a technology which doesn't work too well, I guess.

So, generally speaking there are reasons for what I do. It may be useful to indent more than one space when there are intertwined conversations going on, or what have you. For instance an interpolation between a level-1 indent and a level-2 intent directly should usually be a level-3 indent. Sometimes a level 4 or 5, to emphasize and clarify that the usual chronological order is being disturbed. This may be necessary because we need to be clear on what text, exactly, we are responding to. Maybe there's a better way to do this, I don't know. I don't know as this is generally confusing to most editors.

Anyway, in 16 years I've never heard of this issue, and I don't know if I can change or not, but by all means feel free to refactor any of my talk page posts, as long at there's no substantive change, and as long as your edit summaries are just neutral descriptions of what's being done. I think what you really need is to get a robot approved to do this, which you probably could, and get someone to write is, which I suppose is doable also. This'd prevent having to do tedious one-by-one conversions. There are, for instance, robot that convert JPG images to PNG to save space, and so on.

For advertising, I've sometimes gone to the Village Pump to alert people an idea, and get feedback... certainly the idea of being kind to vision-impaired readers is an important point that most people will support if alerted to the issue, I suppose. You could try the Idea Lab, and see if people might be willing to make some changes in our documentation or support a robot or some code changes or something. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and ideas. It's not just the extra HTML that confuses the screen readers. It's actually valid markup, it's just not correctly applied to the material it's marking up. Wikipedia (unfortunately—no, tragically) uses definition lists (generated through the, um, colon) for indentation, and this doesn't mix well with the bulleted lists that are often used (even when they didn't be, like in non-!voting discussions), generated with the asterisks.

I have to disagree with your approach to indentation; jumping levels is just confusing, especially as it's never necessary. You (we) should always go just one level more than the post to which you're replying. You should also always post below all replies (present at the time) which are at the same level as your reply. Otherwise, it's just a mess, both for sighted readers and those using screen readers. The fact that people do this (you're certainly not the only one) is, I believe, part of the reason this is generally confusing to most editors.

Your idea about a bot is interesting. I don't know how to suggest it be coded, although I have seen it suggested before (actually, I believe somebody tried some first runs of some automation, with very sub-optimal results, leading to much wailing and gnashing of teeth). There are many times I can't figure out what the posters intended anyway, and the fixes, even for this human, are sometimes complicated. I think requesting a bot is too big for me right now, although I will keep your idea (and the Idea Lab) in mind. Maybe there can be an intermediate soultion to reduce the problems.

Happy editing,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever gotten a goat before?

Junkie257 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have (six months ago, visible above) and I didn't know what to do with the last one, either. But, um, thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Shooter (2007 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've seen your edit summary. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great number of costs involved, and you can't simply subtract the budget from the gross and decide, "Hey, this was profitable!" Theaters take their cut of the gross and don't show that film out of the kindness of their hearts and donate all the profits to the studio. There's also advertising costs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Just your reversion with your edit summary would have been enough for me, though; you didn't need to template me (IMO). Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MIL-STD-130, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Data matrix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you're doing on the Noland's Ferry article. I would be happy to shoot some pictures of the area to add to the article - is there anything in particular you'd like to see? Probably the best pictures would be in March once the trees start to show some green, but before they're leafed out. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks for thanking me, but "the work I've been doing" at Nolands Ferry I Archeological Site has been confined to removing an extra "r" in a single edit. In fact, because I did it via Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click, I hadn't really noticed the article name, so I can say I've never heard of Noland's Ferry. But, well, now I have. So while it looks mildly interesting, I have no useful input to offer as regards photos. But good luck with it, Acroterion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right of course, I got distracted between looking at the history and leaving my note and lost the thread of who to talk to. Still, thanks for the spelling. Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]