User talk:ScrapIronIV/Archive2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm back. Can you change

You are welcome to make the changes yourself, just include a source. Scr★pIron^IV 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude i added so many claims on turkic dynasties and they were truce claims then this guys deleted this.i pissed off why u delete this Dengesizz (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that has been done warrants the personal attack on that user's page.[1] NOTHING. Scr★pIron^IV 20:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,This IP address has continued to edit disruptively User talk:208.123.156.62 it seems to be done on purpose because he or she has received several warnings but still persists. Please, do something about this IP address. Thank you. Adrian Guildford (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not an Admin here, so there is nothing I can do except leave a warning on their talk page, which I have already done. Best I can say is to report them to

WP:AIV if problems persist. Scr★pIron^IV

12:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

[email protected]

p.s. BTW I have a number of citations that your are looking for in this article...will take the time to create an account before I edit/send them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.141.123 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Easy enough, once I trimmed the unsourced nonsense around it, the statement supported by that source was out of context, and didn't belong. Local bit of trivia anyway, so I removed it all. Scr★pIron^IV 21:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Mig-29N is a pure air-to-air day-fighter tasked in the interceptor role by the Royal Malaysian Air Force, and it is most definitely not a multirole fighter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kypmbangi01 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support that statement? Otherwise, the the description of the MiG-29 stands. Scr★pIron^IV 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I wonder how you determine "Unsupported in body of article"? There's no mention about Christianity either. So all religions should be removed, because it's just pure speculation without any sources. –

You are correct. That should be removed, too. Feel free. Scr★pIron^IV 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ScrapIronIV - I noticed your recent edit at

Contact me on fb :) https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010338994994&fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metduran (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No. All correspondence must be on-wiki. Scr★pIron^IV 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I attacking myself on my own talk page??

CCL-DTL (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you were attacking others, including me, on your talk page.[2] I would recommend you stop. Scr★pIron^IV 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I made some changes to the American Top Team page which I see you reversed/ changed. I'm the GM for American Top Team and will from time to time update the page as I've done int he past with fighters who are no longer on the team and also add new ones.

Hope that explains my edits. Thanks in advance.

Richie Guerriero General Manager American top Team

As an individual with a clear

reliably sourced, and changes can not be made simply on your personal experience or knowledge. Future changes to this topic should be made by editors without such a conflict of interest. I will tag the article for experienced editors to clean up. Scr★pIron^IV

16:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We do not list the dates, times, and channels of TV shows. This is an encyclopedia, and such information is trivial and dynamic, and changes too often to maintain it. Please read

WP:NOTGUIDE for more information. Scr★pIron^IV

13:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are a reputable editor, can you help me? You revised my addition to United_States_two-dollar_bill, stating: "Trivial", "Unencyclopedic", "Lacking context".

I understand "lacking context" - and can revise in accordance. Would you care to enlightening me with the two other notions?

François Guay (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivial and unencyclopedic could well be a result of it lacking context. Unfortunately, the source link provided no details as to why such bills were being sent into space, so it really was a fairly empty entry. The source only listed bills with photographs, but there needs to be some mention of the history of the practice. I do not object to the inclusion of the fact, if supported by some depth of content. Scr★pIron^IV 21:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what is going on at Tangled? I have it on my watchlist due to the talk page having general-discussion comments removed and restored. The editing activity around the article itself seems even more bizarre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an IP editor from Spain who does not really seem to understand how en-wp works. The one time I did manage to explain an issue, they took it as gospel and modified every article they could get their hands on with a strict - and incorrect - interpretation. Now they seem to have done an about-face and are re-adding what they had once agreed needed to be removed. I really think it is a combination of linguistic skills, cultural differences between wikis, and a little bit of

WP:CIR. So, the Tangled, Tangled (franchise), and Tangled (video game) articles are all involved, with some other pages they are interested in. I am at my wit's end, and have just been trying to keep some stability to what I see. Scr★pIron^IV

00:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I am kind of new to editing scene. But when checked with the talk page of the article. There seems a continuous disruption, edit warring...etc. All based on making a point. I just reverted it to the stable version that I found which was continuously reverted with baseless accusations. I have given a 2-3 sentence summary in the talk page. Thank you, hope your help in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.196.18 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have occasional issues with grammar. Do you know any free/anonymous grammar recheck sites that would help towards this with explanation. I would also like to expand into french, though I don't know anything about the language except the subbed films. Are you knowledgeable about any accessible yet not demeaning and easy to understand resources that I could rely without a one to one interaction and move towards this motif. 117.215.196.18 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have been trying to maintain some stability on that article, relying on sourced content. The issue of edit warring is tiresome, and for english Wikipedia we rely on

what is true, and if there is notable disagreement that should be noted in the article. As far as editing in Wikipedias in languages other than one's native tongue, a certain level of proficiency is expected. I would not recommend editing in any language other than one you are truly proficient in. Scr★pIron^IV

01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like youre using a bot to patrol talk pages and issue warnings. Well you bot is reverting efforts to remove vandalism. An ip is inserting his irrlevant text into other people's posts and your bot identifies is recent contribs as legitimate. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; I have self-reverted, and I do apologize. Clearer edit summaries would have helped in this case. Scr★pIron^IV 21:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No problemo.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you're right? How did I refactor? There is a notice on the talk page saying This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Nikola Tesla article itself. Please place requests for comment or debates about Tesla's ethnicity on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Questions concerning his nationality, ethnicity, and/or birthplace should also be asked on the sub-talkpage. I moved it accordingly, with an appropriate section header. BTW, Do you seriously see "[gibberish questions ...] Language is a point showing to what nationality belongs a person." as on-topic? Have you ever read the Nikola Tesla talk page? --Zoupan 22:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It was someone else's comment, and a response to comments on the image. There will be crossover. Moving the comment to a sub-page after you were called out by two other editors for removing it entirely is disingenuous at best. It is a contentious area, yes - but you know better. Scr★pIron^IV 22:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Still doesn't explain how I refactored it. It was someone else's comment, but it was neither a response nor a comment on the image. If you read the other comment by the user, it is clear that what the comment really is, is a mash-up of gibberish theoretical questions, including false assertions, which ultimately imply that the person was Albanian, without any evidence. I stand by my identification of the comment as NOTAFORUM, provocative, off-topic, gibberish. He's a troll. I ask you, if possible, to read the comment and translate what it means, clear-cut. It would help me understand it if you still think I'm wrong, and I will concede (accepting that the comment is on-topic, part of the "image-discussion").--Zoupan 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ScrapIronIV: and @Zoupan:. ScrapIronIV, I apologise for reverting you there, I hope you didnt find it arrogant, but rather than you, it all had to do with the IP. The problem with him started about two years ago preciselly at Tesla article. I think he started as IP, then registered as Asdisis. He is a Croatian editor determined to participate on en.wiki fighting for Croatian causes. An obvious one, and the one that got most of his atention and ended up in his indef-ban is Nikola Tesla. Since independence Croatia has been experiencing historical revisionism, and one of the main causes for Croatian nationalists has been to Croatisize Tesla as the place he was born nowadays belongs to Croatia. He did his best to convince the community about the Croatiasness of Tesla, he brought some sources, and we gathered tones of sources and analised them all. The conclusion is there. You can both see it in the archive of Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Even that subpage was created because after the consensus was reached, Asdisis and his socks and friends refused to disengage and kept gluttering the talkpage with same arguments. He made so much disruption that he ended indef-banned, however, at his talk-page he openly said he was using proxy and he was not going to stop. So ever since he continues pumping up from time to time hoping editors unaware of the old discussions would give him credit and he will convince them. He is quite eloquent but sooner or later the mask falls and the same old arguments pump up: Tesla said once he was born in Croatia, Smiljan, his birthplace is and was in Croatia (was not, was at Military Frontier), and Croatian was his native language (was not, he just studied in a school where Croatian was lectured as native language). So, even senior editors often unaware of the past of the editor and the past discussions, fall into the trap of discussing with him, but admin HighInBC and me are usually attacked by him and we are still seing a way how to deal with a persistent sockmaster. The way indiicated by other admins has been to ingore him and remove his edits and comments, butthere comes the problem when uninformed editors see it. So that has been the case. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We all read things differently; I saw an imperfect (but not unreasonable) question on the talk page, and did not believe its wholesale removal as warranted for its own sake. However, if it is a comment from an editor evading a block or ban I would not have restored it. Clearer edit summaries do help. I understand the nature of the Tesla article, and of the contentious nature of topics in the region. I do tend to stay away from those articles for that very reason. The statements made in that comment - or, rather, the questions raised in the comment - were not obvious vandalism. Without knowledge of that individual being a sock of a blocked editor, the comment in itself was not disruptive. Scr★pIron^IV 13:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noteced you were seing things as new and uninvolved. But I think you still miss the entire picture. His question is very disruptive. We just had almost a year long discussions about that matter. He brought 2-3 sources, others brought 20-30 and the case was clearly against him. Consensus was archived (most editors were neither Croat or Serb, I was the only one from Serbia, 6-7 others were not, so he cannot cry lack of neutrality), and he ignores the consensus and continues to make same claims proven wrong and just makes again same questions already discussed just to see if he gets some new editors he can influence and get his way. He was indef-banned for not being able to disengage and because he as so obsessed with the matter that he even used socks pretending to be someone else supporting his view. Sick. Hope you understand now why is indeed vandalism. FkpCascais (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To make it really simple: just imagine you and me get into a dispute. I present two sources and make some claims. We discuss with participation of many other neutral editors. At the end my arguments are proven wrong and consensus is reached. I even get indef-banned for using dirty tricks at the discussion and because I am unable to disengage. And then I come up as IP every couple of months making the same claims proven wrong bringing the same sources already discussed in order to see if I can fool some newe editors. He is eloquent, but his atitude is not less disruptive because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this book so bad? Ckid giB (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all; what I object to is the addition to the article as written. No source, no notability, not even an ISBN - and the sentence doesn't even use real words. Scr★pIron^IV 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I'll learn how to include sources. Ckid giB (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is Jaron. I'm the one who wrote the articles on Derick Cross,Baba Israel,Yako 440,Kaila Mullady, and Beatrhyme communications. Please stop Putting the deletion notices on the pages. They are neither accurate nor justly given, the information that has been put on there, is from reliable sources that I have placed very clearly in the references sections and another admin looked over them and asked that i put references in it that are already there. So your reasoning for the notices is neither accurate nor just.

Please do not continue to remove Speedy Deletion notices. As the creator of these articles, you are not permitted to do so. Continued removal is disruptive. The community will determine whether these articles can stay, or need to be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote new talent. Scr★pIron^IV 13:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't promotion of new tallent this is providing info on tallent that has already been promoted. The references i've provided very clearly state that they are already professional and have reveaved an accurate amount of noteriety.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScrapIronIV

You must wait now for community consensus. There is some process here - if you are correct, they will be kept, and the tags will be removed by an uninvolved editor. If you are not, then they will be deleted. It's as simple as that. Scr★pIron^IV 14:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

understood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaron Felix Patton (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

The block quote of Steven Pinker was included not to make an anthropological claim about anarchy but to provide context for the next paragraph, which begins, "Some anarcho-primitivists believe that this concept is used to justify the values of modern industrial society and move individuals further from their natural habitat and natural needs." In my opinion the size of the quote gives undue weight to such unessential and misleading assertions, so I'd like to remove it or reduce it to a shorter quote in a normal sentence.

In case you actually believe Pinker, note that the quote directly contradicts other parts of the section, e.g. "Other anthropologists . . . have repudiated the idea of hunter-gatherer societies being a source of scarcity and brutalization." If you like, I can provide a detailed rebuttal of Pinker's poorly researched bullshit. — Preceding

Providing more than one side of a debate - especially when properly sourced - is an important part of any encyclopedic entry. Scr★pIron^IV 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

[[User:ScrapIronIV| Check out File 33 if you want to find out something that not many know... https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/82d6433b-8385-4bf4-86a9-7d1f080e3e7a

That was when we rigged the Outside Magazine poll.

We didn't win the Outside poll. Joseph called me at around 7am in the morning while I was at my apartment in Medellin, Colombia. He was desperate to win the poll and asked me to rig it..., so that's what we did.

We rigged the poll to beat Tough Mudder (who we also believe was using a robot to vote because we analyzed the speed of their votes).

In any event... That's the truth. All the marketing about how we won that poll... that was all fake. We rigged the poll.

jk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkxyz (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jkxyz (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Scr★pIron^IV 13:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Its official that

it's an important part of his pop legacy at this point..do you object to the word 'legendary?' legendary is actually a neutral word, meaning legends about the subject exist, which they do...and they're described in article proper at length....the next sentence on his peers describing his mind as otherworldly is again simply pointing to info in article proper...the third sentence is fully supported by the citation...think it's overall a modest improvement to intro as a quick reference to pop interest that exists about subject amidst mostly technical stuff... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to talk page stalk here, but using the word "legenday" implies a point of view that is not neutral, because it implies a positive or good viewpoint on the article subject. If I saw an edit to an article subject that inserts this word, I would have removed it citing Wikipedia's

neutral point of view guidelines as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

02:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

here's Merriam Webster if you'd like to learn the definition of the word... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legendary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi ScrapIronIV. I don't want to edit the Neumann article because of a current dispute with anon 68 on another article, but in addition to the peacock issue, I was unable to find much of what stated in the source. Examples: "described ... as having an otherworldly quality"; "It has been speculated that Von Neumann's

IQ may be among the highest in human history." Did I miss something in the source? I would also point out that IQ is not the same as intelligence (far from it in fact); I couldn't find reference to "IQ" in the source either. Sundayclose (talk

) 17:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The entire addition was hagiographic. I will keep an eye on the article. Certainly notable individuals deserve kind words, but we must be careful not to make gods of mere humans. Scr★pIron^IV 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

definition otherworldly from Merriam Webster: : "suggesting a world that is different from the world we know : seeming to belong to or come from another world." from the (excellent) cognitive abilities section of article: "I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann's does not indicate a species superior to that of man", said Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe of Cornell University... the actual meaning of words is important..(ie scrapiron obviously thought otherworldly meant really cool or really awesome as objected to it as puffery when the word doesn't mean that at all...) and I can rework or find a different source for the third sentence...but the point is to briefly point to the 'cognitive abilities' section in the intro in the same way the other sections are pointed to....68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have used rollback, but I was changing the date to match the reference. I missed that the main text also had the wrong date which I have now corrected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate you fixing it! Scr★pIron^IV 16:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying Ataturk was Albanian? He obviously was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.12.173 (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is what the sources report, so that is what Wikipedia reports. There are five reliable sources attached. Scr★pIron^IV 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

He definitely did not consider himself to be Albanian. He was Turkish. But I guess you should take him off the List of Turkish People, because he is obviously Albanian (sarcasm). Now correct me if I am mistaken, but Wikipedia says his mother is Turkish. But for his father, it says: "He is thought to be of Albanian or Slavic origin by some scholars,[3][4][5][6][7] although Falih Rıfkı Atay, journalist and close friend of Atatürk, holds that he descends partially from Turks of Söke, in Aydın Province.[1][8] Historian and biographer Patrick Kinross writes that 'this can only be a matter for surmise'". Therefore, he is POSSIBLY HALF Albanian, but he did not consider himself to be that. Also, notice how it says "Albanian or Slavic". Why does possibly being half Albanian put Ataturk in the list of Albanians, but being possibly half Slavic doesn't put him in the list of Slavs. Maybe you should change the name of the article to "List of Possibly Partial Albanians by ethnicity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.12.173 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Wikipeadia says this: "Atatürk's parents and relatives used Turkish as their native language and were part of the Muslim millet.[7] His father Ali Rıza is thought by some to have been of Albanian origin;[8][9][10][11][12] however, according to Falih Rıfkı Atay, Vamik D. Volkan and Norman Itzkowitz, Ali Rıza's ancestors were Turks, ultimately descending from Söke in the Aydın Province.[13][14] His mother Zübeyde is thought to have been of Turkish origin[10][11] and according to Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, she was of Yörük ancestry.[15] There are also some suggestions about his partial Slavic origin.[16][17][18]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.12.173 (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, sources support the contention. Restoring, again. Scr★pIron^IV 13:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that my change contradicts with existing sources, but it is a Wikipedian's job to bring out the truth, isn't it? I can provide more references that the Maratha Empire ended Mughal Empire and the former was the primary cause of decline of the latter. Amit20081980 (talk 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not when those changes redefine the the meaning of an entry entirely, and when they change the history of a continent by an entire century. Scr★pIron^IV 20:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@

Independent advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. Scr★pIron^IV 14:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The link to all my reverting edits is here. [4] Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:OUTING - please redact the links, and contact an administrator to ensure that you are not violating this policy. If so, it should be revdel'd immediately. Scr★pIron^IV

14:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Ditto for that editor's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 14:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Thank for that. I have only pointed out the reason for a possible conflict of interest, showing that the editor was associated with the organisation without declaring this. I only followed "... if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." (I'll still contact an Administrator about this, but I'll remove these three links immediately.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - always better to be safe than sorry when it comes to that particular policy. Scr★pIron^IV 14:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed all these particular associated links. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

Was trying to fix this article that was flagged for deletion and added this citation, from Rolling Stone:http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/hear-elephantes-upbeat-remix-of-nathan-sykes-over-and-over-again-20151111 Not sure if this is a good enough citation or not...but was hoping to get your thoughts.

Thank you! Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackeke (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I did add some references to

Is this OK?. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page - you know full well that IMDB is not a

WP:BLP info, such as birth dates. Scr★pIron^IV

18:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the text you deleted was related to his marriages, not his birthdate. Quis separabit? 18:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see any reply to my last point here. Quis separabit? 18:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is no better for marriages than it is for birth dates. IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical data. Period, full stop. While I said "such as birth dates" it was merely one example of many things we do not use IMDB as a source. Scr★pIron^IV 18:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I added an image of a very rare film poster to the Empire Strikes Back page. The image directly corresponds with text in the "Release" section of the article regarding several early premieres of the film -- including the Royal Charity premiere in London on May 20th, the subject of the poster. The image was removed by you and I'm unclear why. There is another image of a 1997 re-release poster right next to that section and that image has existed without issue for some time. What does the other image add to the article that my image does not? Can you please help me understand the rationale? Wikipedia has many poor quality or incorrectly labeled pictures of posters for films and I would like to start contributing to improve them. However, I would like to make sure I learn the process before making a bunch of changes that later get reversed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appreciable (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-free images are to be used sparingly; adding this one means we have multiple non-free images on the page. There is no specific value added that justifies fair use of yet another copyrighted image on the page. Scr★pIron^IV 15:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! Can I ask why the image of the 1997 poster is included then? The original 1980 premiere of Empire Strikes Back was a very important event in both film and Star Wars history -- the subject of my poster. And while the re-release in 1997 was also important, I would think the inclusion of the later poster is not as important. It can commonly be found on the web, in print and as DVD/BR cover art. The "Empire Day" poster is extremely rare and to my knowledge, this is the first one to surface. Again, thank you for your help in understanding the not just the rules, but the unwritten ones as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appreciable (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up; I have removed the additional non-free image that you mentioned. Wikipedia articles can not be a gallery of copyrighted images. Scr★pIron^IV 17:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I have to say, some of this seems somewhat arbitrary. I know you removed the 1997 image, and that is of course your decision. But there are many wikipedia entries for films that have more than one poster image -- many of which add important context to the text. Is there any official sort of policy regarding this? Or will I just need to work with particular editors as the situations arise? And as long as I have an actual human to bounce questions off of, could I please get your advice on these situations?

1. Zatoichi meets Yojimbo -- This page has no original poster image. In situations like these is it ok to add a low-resolution image of the original poster?

2. Lower Depths -- This page currently uses a DVD cover as the main image. In situations like these can I replace the current image with a low-resolution photo of the original poster? If a non-free image is to be used, I would think the original poster issued by the studio would be preferred over whatever image that particular distributor chose for their DVD release.

3. Hidden Fortress -- This page currently uses a later re-release poster as the main image. In situations like these can I replace the current image with a low-resolution photo of the original release poster?

4. Rashomon -- This question is like a cross of the Hidden Fortress (3. above) and Empire Strikes Back (5. below). The Rashomon page currently uses a later re-release poster as the main image. This article is also much longer as it's an extremely important film. There is a whole section written on how this film was considered for various international awards (and debates as to whether Rashomon's director would best represent Japanese cinema over Naruse or Ozu, etc...) and how it eventually was submitted and won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. I managed to track down an original poster from 1951 that highlights the Venice Film Festival win. The poster is considered part of the original release as the film was screened continuously for over a year, but it wasn't the "first printing" from 1950. It definitely pre-dates the current poster (which is from 1962), however. Is this a situation where I could add the 1951 poster to the main body of text in the awards section? Or should I replace the main image with the earlier 1951 poster? Or handle it differently somehow?

5. Empire Strikes Back -- There were at least 4-5 poster designs for this film, and that doesn't include the many non-US posters or special event posters like the "Empire Day" poster. Is there anyway to highlight the variations in designs? The poster that currently represents the film is fine, but it seems kind of arbitrary that that particular one was chosen.

6. Better quality -- Some images used to represent films are of very poor quality. In these situations can I upload new, higher quality photos and use them as the main image? To be clear, I do not mean that I would replace them with higher resolution versions, just sharper images with correct colors, etc... They would still be low-resolution images suitable for non-free use.

Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appreciable (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to deal with these other pages on a case by case basis. Please read

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a relevant essay. My issue is with using non-free, copyrighted material. There is plenty of misuse of it on other pages. Replacing an existing image with a "better" is often subjective, and would be subject to review. Simply put, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - images are nice, and free ones are welcome. Non-free, copyrighted images are to be used only when nothing else is available. An encyclopedia does not perform comparisons of posters, nor is it a repository of them. Which non-free image to select - when nothing else is available - is up to the consensus of the editors on the page. Scr★pIron^IV

20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Per

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep trivial biographical information on a minor (minor celebrity, and minor, minor) in an encyclopedia article. Scr★pIron^IV

12:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I replied at the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the references i used shows that it made the front page of The Age newspaper at the time. Something that makes the front page - and The Age was a high brow broadsheet, not a low market tabloid - is pretty notable, yet the article has been AfD'd?

I have no connection to that article; why are you coming to me for this? Scr★pIron^IV 13:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for thanking me. I was glad to help. An unpleasant situation seemed to be developing and I did not want you to be accused of edit-warring. With two or more of us reverting, that is less likely to happen. Best wishes, LynwoodF (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes review can occasionally confuse me on that score. The wording in that case was just not an improvement. I still need to be careful not to revert a pending change too often, because I guess it would still be edit-warring. Scr★pIron^IV 20:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert me on the Fedor Emelianenko page?

I added a referenced piece of information about his ancestry. Why was I rudely reverted?!

I will tell you the same thing that others have told you. You are trying to use

WP:BLPPRIMARY, find an acceptable source, and then seek consensus on the talk page if you wish to make these changes. Scr★pIron^IV

20:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your notification says, "Your edit on ‪Smartphone‬ was reverted." Does that mean it was declined? If so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Franks (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick message concerning the images you removed from the page. May i ask what you mean by "unvetted images"? You said the images were unsourced. I have the exact sources of all the photos i uploaded so if that is the problem i will be more than happy to give you the links so long as the images are allowed to remain on the page. The images i uploaded were recently released images of the K-2 thus i am confused to why you had problems with them. I added relevant images (not random) that are relevant to each section of the page. E.g. I uploaded images of radars on the tank as well as terrain scanners which are found in the description thus it would be a good addition to the page.

Hello ScrapIronIV. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

You were supposed to talk about the change, "status quo" does not give editors the right to revert everything and anything. Did you see the talk page discussion? 2606:6000:610A:9000:382B:D833:6100:7319 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet another generations page that has had to be protected from your disruptive editing. Stay off my talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, deal agreed stay off my talk too.2606:6000:610A:9000:382B:D833:6100:7319 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My edit was reverted. Thanks. St.Thomas Christains are popularly called as Syrian Christains. Why? Many people put forward many hypothesis. I was also wondering about it why?. After a long time I found out an appropriate answer from Nirad C. Chaudhuri from where I sourced it. As a a person of the community from 1969 I had gone through many books including many of the books quoted in the references. However the logic of Nirad C. Chaudhuri is the best in substantiating why St. Thomas christians are popularly called as Syrian Christians . (I am university Master Degree holder in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology).Thanks.Kokkarani(talk)

When making significant changes, you must provide cources. Please read

WP:V for further information. Scr★pIron^IV

12:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church the references 7 & 8 are improper or invalid . Please verify it. ThanksKokkarani(talk). In Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church ,the references 8 & 9 are improper or invalid. Please verify it. Thanks Kokkarani(talk)

Hi ScrapIronIV! Saw you reverted to an earlier version of the Shmuly Yanklowitz page. One thing for clarification, if I may: Ok, I can see why perhaps the op-eds appear more "resume building," (certainly not my intention while editing, because I thought they were notable!), but what about about Yanklowitz's books? If a living person has written a book, even multiple books, can't they be added to the page? Were they not cited properly? I'm just interested. Thanks for all your help! JoanieElf123 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC) JoanieElf123

Hi seen as it was in a tv show i can't find a source apart from the episode and any one who's watches how i met your mother or Chuck will know the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvman19 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This information is trivial in nature. Even if you did provide a source, it would have to indicate why it is worth including. Scr★pIron^IV 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No conflict of interest - the link and info is from the Univ. of Miami collection on Mr. Swingle. I never met him - he just happens to be my grandfather. 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Berylwolfe (talk)

Hi - when I did cite a source - the university of miami collection on Swingle link - I got a pop up that said you're doing too many external links - several times I got this pop up that said I couldn't include a citation to the U of Miami library. And when I include just a link to Swingle's Wiki page, you say it's not enough citations so you're taking it downBerylwolfe (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC). So not sure what to do. I am Swingle's granddaughter, so I know what I added to be true, also if you look at his page, which I believe was created by the U of Miami, he is credited with bringing the date to the US. I just happen to know more about it. Please advise or add back in if you can. Thanks.

Yes, as a family member there is a conflict of interest. As for links, Wikipedia does not permit external links in the body of an article. All statements must be sourced, and if the external links you are adding are intended as the source, then please read

WP:CITE for instructions. Scr★pIron^IV

17:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

HI, I'm new to this. what would be a reliable source for citing a movie or this particular movie? Kenziebrethauer (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You would want to find an article written by an independent, third part

reliable source which links the film to the school; i.e., a newspaper, magazine, or online source that is unconnected to the school or the team. IMDB is not a reliable source as its content is contributed by site users, and does not have editorial oversight about such claims. Scr★pIron^IV

16:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centurytreedesigns (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The site you used to provide the cite is clearly promotional, and selling cleaning services. This is not a

reliable source. What you need is independent, theird party coverage to include it. When the user clicks that source, they are taken to a website that sells carpet cleaning services. That is promotional. Scr★pIron^IV

20:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi my friend Where is the population in these two sites? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/05/north-africa-berbers-get-boost-from-arab-spring.html http://www.britannica.com/topic/Berber AyOuBoXe (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Both are clearly specified in the text of the articles. Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

it's not a reliable website
anyone can edit !!
4 sources vs 1 source ? AyOuBoXe (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Recommendations can be made by anyone for the Britannica site, but those edits are vetted by the editorial staff. That is how encyclopedias worked for scores of years. And the news source is, well, a news source. When a range of sources are available, the range is reported. Further discussion should be reserved for the talk page of the article. If you wish to continue the discussion, take it there so other editors can weigh in. Scr★pIron^IV 21:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Its impossible that berbers are just 13 million in morocco and 9 million in algeria
If we talk about the linguistic side : yes, but if we talk about the genetic side well i do not agree with all this
In North Africa, there are Amazigh :Tamazight(berber language)speakers and Amazigh (Arabic speakers )and Arabs and blacks who are a minority
And you can be sure from any site of genetics
But if you are pointing the Berbers from the linguistic aspect, I agreed with you
But the number of Amazigh had to include all the Amazigh (berber speakers and arabic speakers)
I think this is an injustice for the Amazigh
We can not say Americans are english because they speak English !
Why you dealt with arab page differently
You Considered all the population who are in the League of Arab States are arab
Arabization policy everywhere
Sorry for my poor English AyOuBoXe (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is arabs in north africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin AyOuBoXe (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, take it to the article talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 12:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert me on the Fedor Emelianenko page?

I added a referenced piece of information about his ancestry. Why was I rudely reverted?!

I will tell you the same thing that others have told you. You are trying to use

WP:BLPPRIMARY, find an acceptable source, and then seek consensus on the talk page if you wish to make these changes. Scr★pIron^IV

20:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, my source is not original research. It's an interview with Emelianenko.

Secondly, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." That means primary sources are allowed.

So I still fail to see why you're reverting me?

Echoing

reliable source must be removed, especially if controversial. Your references do not meet these guidelines. Other experienced editors have also shared the same concerns. Continuing to revert this content back into the article will result in you being blocked. Thank you for understanding. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

22:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your recent assistance on the Star Trek talk page in helping me to recall the title of this gem of a WW II movie. I haven't seen it in many years (which is why its title eluded me). I'm going to look for it presently. Thanks again. it's most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for letting me know that you got the message It's nice to know that the effort was appreciated. Scr★pIron^IV 15:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that you did more than just supply me with the movie’s title. On the Star Trek talk page, I said that this episode strongly (emphasis added) reminded me of the movie I referred to. What I didn’t add was that I thought it bordered on plagiarism. I just went to the Wiki article for The Enemy Below that you kindly linked to and it states under "remakes" that the Star Trek episode was strongly based on the movie (did you realize this?) and even that it is thought that Gene Roddenberry paid royalties to the estate of Gary Cooper, who apparently owned the rights to the film for some reason. (Maybe like Michael Jackson who bought the rights to others’ music, most notably the Lennon-McCartney songbook, Cooper bought the rights to films as a business investment.) Anyway, thanks to you I’m feeling rather proud of myself to have picked up on this! :) I’m far from a genius but I was always very good in the SAT type of analogy questions of yesteryear. I’ll have to add this to the Star Trek episode article when I get some time. Thanks much again!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, why u saying that my articel is nominated for deleting? For the reason: That the articel talk it about him/herself? That reason is not true! I add it her voice-theatre roles and the companies where she has work/worked.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted my minor edit to Henry Kissinger (see here) with a cryptic edit comment. I made that edit because Lê Đức Thọ's page is spelled with the Vietnamese diacritics, and his name later in the same sentence includes the Vietnamese diacritics. Could you help me understand why you reverted my edit? --Clorox (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have restored the name as it is specified on the Nobel Peace Prize website; this is the english wikipedia, and this is how his name is displayed on english sites. It is merely a passing mention in this article. Certainly, the subject's article should include the diacritics somewhere, but should be primarily in the english version for the english wikipedia. Scr★pIron^IV 13:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Zibes 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/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Zibes until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Amusing - but I think that makes the problem worse. Why don't we let some more experienced editors handle the Twinkle error? Maybe I have a Talk Page Stalker who can help out... Scr★pIron^IV 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a stalker, but I think I have it all cleaned up. If you want to list Pablo Zibes for discussion please try again. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I've sorted it all out so your original nomination is restored at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Zibes, it's listed just once in the log and there's only one tag on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried to fix one of them, but somehow they're linked. Any idea of how to make this work? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I've sorted it all out so your original nomination is restored at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Zibes, it's listed just once in the log and there's only one tag on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You wanted your discussion, you got it. Tvx1 23:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits You effected reverted the page to a transphobic version and removed powerful information when You could have sought a citation for it instead. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 01:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you allowed to use Soundcloud, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, ect as "external links" as per Wiki's guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftofthemiddle (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"take it to talk".

Not going to bother; that paragraph is neither notable nor interesting, and ill-placed to boot, with the same random, unknown guy appearing in paragraphs 2 and 4. You have made no attempt to dispute or understand any of those points. Talking with an automaton outputting "sourced !" to every input seems unproductive to me. In the interest of avoiding the three-revert, I shall leave things as they are.

Also, I dearly hope you meant "take it to talk, please". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If I meant to say "please" I would have. Leaving that word out is neither impolite nor uncivil. As for the content dispute, I won't discuss it on my talk page. If you feel that the opinions of the organizations that the individual in question is representing are not worthy of inclusion in the article, then take it to the article's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No, what I "feel" is that you are wasting my time. Seriously; the Strategic Studies Group is so notable that the article by that name points to... a small Australian games developer. A process that requires talking at length to establish points that obvious is not worth partaking in. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I realize where the problem lies. Do yourself a favor and follow real links to real articles, and you will see something different. You know what happens when you assume, and assuming that the translation of Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos to the english Strategic Studies Group would lead directly to an article about that organization is a mistake. It does not; they are not the same organization. What is "obvious" to you has no bearing on reality. Follow the links, actually read the sources, and you might come up with a different conclusion. If you do your homework, I am happy to discuss things. Bring this sort of time-wasting nonsense to my page, and I will ask you to stay away. Oh, and for the last time - take it to the ARTICLE talk page, not mine. 'Nuff said. Scr★pIron^IV 19:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That you somehow managed to convince yourself that I thought they were the same organisation is nothing short of mind-bending. If I could miss the ground as reliably as you miss the point, I would fly. That said, I think I will take your "'Nuff said" advice to heart, and leave it at that. Thank you kindly for one of the most surreal exchanges I've had this month. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I will archive this one for its humor value. Normally, assertions such as these would have gone straight into the wastebin, but this one is just too good... Scr★pIron^IV 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)