User talk:Sundayclose

hey, you recently removed by edit on The Beatles page, saying that the citation is a dead link. I cross checked and the link is working for me. please recheck the link: https://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-of-all-time-artists/ Bhkkbey250 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"And all quotation". In other words: I cant just say the constitution says something without providing proof along with its quotation where it states what your claiming specifically. Neither you or the op did such. Hence our current circumstances. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences". Your welcome and have a good one! PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:HARASS. Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

you removed the timeline from the band members section yet it is simply a graphical representation of the info in the band members section. Why not just leave it with the notice of that you want a source? Mighty Midas (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia. The Members section has been unsourced for years. That's a sufficient reason to remove the timeline. It would not be a policiy violation to remove the Members section also, but I'm willing to wait a while before I do that. I requested sources there. It is impossible to remove part of a timeline, although part of the Members section can be removed if it is not sourced in a timely manner. If you would like to restore the timeline, feel free to add the sources to the Members section (for which I would be grateful), but don't restore the timeline without sources. My experience is that citation requests in band articles go unresolved for a very long time, too long to leave an unsourced timeline. Fans love to add content, but they're not always very good at providing sources. The timeline will always be available in the edit history and easy to restore when sources are supplied. Sundayclose (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough, most band members sections go unsourced. I will look to see what sourced band members sections use and try and find some for the velvet underground. Thanks for getting back to me Mighty Midas (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda wanted to apologize for the shit I spewed up earlier this morning. Not really the best guy and I let myself get into arguments that probably get me nowhere. I do apologize how I acted. Anyways. Thanks. Good day

@

ARMcgrath: I've certainly found myself doing that kind of thing on occasion. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't apologize to this dude. He's garnered a reputation for reckless and irresponsible behavior in his edits, sometimes gutting entire pages and then lashing out when people check him on his bad behavior.

He has tried to weaponize his knowledge of Wikipedia against editors he disagrees with and refuses to back down or apologize when confronted with information that empirically contradicts his opinion, only telling people to stop harassing him when they confront him. 45.19.35.32 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but OK? The source is reliable and is literally mentioned with the proper template in the text. 37.100.233.58 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BURDEN to again try to shirk your responsibility. I desperately tried to be "collegial" in my communications with you, to no avail. You created a mess and only decided to creep forward fixing it after I repeatedly pushed you. And until you make fixing the mess as much of a priority as you did creating it, I'll remove the category without any apology to you. Stay off of my talk page if all you want to do is offer useless "advice", and that includes a response to this message. If you are tempted to ignore that request, consider it a warning. Instead, spend a few minutes cleaning up the mess. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Neither says late May or early June. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CRYSTAL. Films sometimes delay or cancel production for various reasons, and neither your nor I know whether that will happen. The problem isn't that I didn't check my edit. You didn't completely represent what the sources say, nor did you look at my previous edit summaries which clearly explain. But that's OK, I probably wasn't very clear either. What we really is need a source clearly indicating that filming actually began on May 10, not that it was expected to begin. In the mean time, I just changed your edit to reflect that filming is expected to begin on May 10, which more accurately reflects what the sources say. Please don't change that and we should be OK. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That is okay but you you didn't even read the sources before reverting me. They never said early May or late June. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your revert of another user on Beetlejuice restoring the

@Linkin Prankster: Thanks for the message. I disagree that it serves no purpose, but this one is not worth arguing about. Hopefully the draft will become an article soon and it will be a moot point. Sundayclose (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have RS where she states that she prefers they/them pronouns? GLAAD uses she/her pronouns for Mattea Roach, and they should know.

We need Mattea's own words, her/their "SELF-identification", not what others say about it (I know there are a couple sources that say she uses they/their), even if it's RS. We need Mattea's own words in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPCAT. Read her article, which uses they/them: Mattea Roach. I simply made my edit consistent with her article. If you want to challenge her use of pronouns, it's best to do so at her article. If it's changed there I'll change my edit for consistency. By the way, when she plays Jeopardy the host consistently uses "they/them", although I'm not sure if that's considered a reliable source. But that's how I found out, then I checked her article. I don't have much doubt, but at this point I don't have time to search for a source. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Only took a minute to find this. Feel free to add to her article. Sundayclose (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I'm aware of a couple sources, including that one, which say Mattea prefers they/them pronouns, but so far no one has produced RS where Mattea states that she/they prefers they/them pronouns, not even evidence that Mattea uses them about herself. That's what we need. The changes at the Mattea Roach article are made by editors who openly admit they are using OR, and I have disputed that violation of OR policy. We've been discussing the issue, but once I was personally attacked on the talk page, I withdrew from the discussion. Some people there are strongly personally invested in forcing this change. I don't care either way. For example, I'm personally fine with using she/her pronouns for Amy Schneider. Those who advocate the change even muddy the waters by using our way of dealing with transgender persons, but there is no evidence Mattea is trans. Mattea identifies as lesbian. When I have stated Mattea is not trans, I have been accused of being transphobic, which is a nasty personal attack.

To follow policy, we need SELF-identification. No one has been able to produce evidence of such, so the current use of they/them pronouns for Mattea in our articles is against policy. The fact that some other sources do so is irrelevant to the question of SELF-identification, and I find it rather compelling that GLAAD doesn't do it. The most we could do is use attribution and state that "these sources claim Mattea prefers they/them pronouns", but we can't do it ourselves by using OR and violating MOS:GENDERID. It's also a BLP violation as it's an unsourced change. Unsourced controversial BLP content must be removed immediately.

We need to be able to separate what a few other sources do and what we do. Those sources are not bound by our PAG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: I respect your opinion, but here's my opinion. If a reliable source states, "Roach uses they/them pronouns", that's sufficient. I don't think we need a source that explicitly states, "Mattea says, 'We use they/them pronouns'." I think that stringent requirement would eliminate many people with articles unnecessarily. If a source is reliable, it can be trusted to provide accurate information without a direct quotation from the person. Some people who use they/them don't see the need to do so as long as their wishes are properly represented by a source. If I used they/them and the New York Times said I do so, that would be sufficient. I don't have to explicitly be quoted in an article saying, "I use they/them pronouns." Just as it would be sufficient if the NYT stated that I'm Catholic or Jewish, gay or straight, white or a person of color, butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. We trust reliable sources to get it right. If someone finds another reliable source that disputes it, that would be a different matter. Thanks again for bringing all of this to my attention. Sundayclose (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "If I used they/them and the New York Times said I do so, that would be sufficient."

I agree: "If Mattea used they/them about themself and The New York Times said that Mattea did so, that would be sufficient," but we have no evidence that Mattea does that. I have asked for evidence and no one has provided it. Some others use those pronouns for Mattea, but we don't have evidence that she does or that she has said anything about it. Right now OR speculation rules here, and some editors want to force anyone, even CISgender gays and lesbians, to use they/them pronouns, even if there is no evidence they are non-binary or transgender. Not every lesbian wants to use they/them pronouns. Yes, we know that CISgender people can be non-binary, but without any evidence to the contrary, we just treat them as we always have. "Cisgender people may or may not conform to gender norms and stereotypes associated with their gender identity." Around here, we use the pronouns which they use to describe themselves. If there is no suspicion in RS they are non-binary, a sex assigned at birth boy is called he and a sex assigned at birth girl is called she. Isn't that still true? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a matter of OR, BLP, and attribution.

1. OR is violated when an editor's own conclusions, common sense, and counting of uses of they/them or she/her on a website (like Jeopardy!), is substituted for actual RS.
2. BLP is violated when an editor inserts unsourced and contentious descriptions without proper sourcing.
3. Attribution is involved when we attribute statements to the authors, such as "Trudy Ring of The Advocate writes that "Mattea Roach, a writer and podcaster from Toronto, who is queer and uses they/them pronouns,..."[1] That is generally acceptable practice for documenting opinions, but not facts. It's a fact that Trudy Ring is of that opinion. We use such attributed statements when an actual self-description is lacking, but it does not meet our policy requirement for how we act here, especially because it's a BLP matter.

What is lacking is her actual SELF-description.

This leaves us with a conundrum because, according to the requirement for a self-description, we are currently violating OR and BLP. Should we start a centralized discussion somewhere? We need to clear this up and change our policy requirement for a self-description (with consequent serious BLP issues to follow). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WT:BLP rather than thrashing it out one article at a time. I certainly would respect a clear consensus there. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Sundayclose. You have new messages at JeffSpaceman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thanks! Sorry it was a revert at first before I added the link, as I was feeling lazy! All the best & have a great weekend! Stereorock (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, your trimming of the plot summary of The Kingdom (film) was well-intended, but misguided. You want to trim the plot of to avoid plot bloat, that's fine. But not in such a drastic matter like you did on it. We got to keep what was written. Find anything that is should be trimmed down and keep anything that is important and take it from there. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BattleshipMan: It was far beyond the 700 word limit. And in case you didn't know, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Feel free to trim it yourself, but keep in under 700 words. Or get consensus to keep it as long as it is. Otherwise don't criticize a good faith effort. It's easy to criticize; that probably took you less than a minute. Improving Wikipedia takes a little effort, not knee-jerk criticisms. Sundayclose (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: Reducing the huge amount of plot summary that size isn't helpful either. If you want to trim it down, you leave it as is and get someone else who can do that with such drastic reduction of plot summary or whatever else you want to do. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:STATUSQUO. Sundayclose (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sundayclose: Let's find some way to a create a resolution here. Trimming it down that plot summary that extreme isn't helpful in my book. I find trimming down the plot summary without removing that amount of plot material easier because it helps keep anything essential and helps the summary flow better. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BattleshipMan: The solution is simple. You can trim it down to 700 words. You don't have to do it today. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Again, I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but if you don't want to put any effort into improving the article, either get consensus for the old version or move on. I'm sure we both have more important things to do. In the time you have spent repeatedly messaging me, you could have spent some time rewriting the plot summary. I not rehashing this endlessly. It's up to you if you want to try to improve the article, but there's no point in sending me the same message again and again. Sundayclose (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BattleshipMan: Reducing the plot summary to the size you did won't don't any good for me to get it down to 700 words. I'm going to get someone else to help out with this. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BattleshipMan: If you have nothing new to say, I'm finished on this topic. Thanks for your messages. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure, Battleshipman did ask for my input on my talk page. I used wordcounter.com and it comes out as 673 words so it is below the limit, the tag appears to be from when it was 1400 words. I am happy to give it a once over once I finish work to tighten it up but it being one long paragraph isn't appropriate or very readable or aesthetically interesting. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for your message. I have no problem with anyone else editing the plot summary, as long as it doesn't exceed 700 words. Sundayclose (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sundayclose, just to make sure the ping doesn't fail – your input would be welcome at Kesc4399's talk page. I'm sorry for the annoyance this may cause especially given your request for them not to message you again, but the annoyance of eventually having to argue at ANI for a block would probably have been greater. Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Done. You haven't annoyed me. Kesc4399's unending walls of useless text exhaust me, which is why I told him to message me on the article talk page, not here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Plecker's orginial 1943 list of surnames, including the Tennessee Melungeons, should be cited on this page in full for better comprehension as to how the term has been used in history. StephanieTree (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you erase my valid source ciations for Walter Plecker's 1943 list and Will Allen Dromgoole's depiction of Calloway Collins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieTree (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Spider-Man comics where he is said to have mentioned in some comics that his superhuman speed, is called "proportionate speed of a spider" and "spider-speed", you know that Spider-Man does have proportionate speed of a spider, not just agility. I have links to share this topic to you; https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Spectacular-Spider-Man-1976/Issue-87?id=19204, https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Amazing-Spider-Man-1963/Issue-40?id=4008, and https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Amazing-Fantasy-1962/Issue-15. This is the site called "readcomiconline" I read those and it's free, so ok, I'll never to editing war or repeat things back, but I can discuss this topic to you in Spider-Man talk page. But I have evidence where these Spider-Man comic books explain that Spider-Man really does have superhuman speed. Aaeliaba (talk) 1:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs)  

Note: When the first character of a post is a space, the section "subscribe" link doesn't show up. Again sorry for the misclick. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: No problem. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were right to revert, for the following reasons:

• The hidden text is a pair of comments: first at the top of the Examples section there's <!-- Additional items, unless attributed to Spooner, AND RELIABLY CITED as such, will be speedily removed.--> which is followed after the introductory text by <!-- This section is RESTRICTED to the nine examples given by Lederer. Additions will be removed. -->, and then at the end of the Examples section there's a repeat of <!-- Additional items, unless attributed to Spooner, AND RELIABLY CITED as such, will be speedily removed.-->. So, it brackets the Examples section. It refers to "this section", meaning the Examples section. But I was not editing that section. I was editing the Popular Use / Culture section, under Literature.
• The reason I said "I don't need to cite a source" is because the source is as it appears in the main text: a 1941 lecture Life, Letters and Education. I can add that this lecture was given at Smith College (Nov 13 1941) and Wellesley College (Dec 2 1941), in Massachusetts. I could also add that it was reprinted in a book in 1953, but that's not really the source, is it? Or is it?

 Card Zero  (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your revert of my edit, and for acknowledging that it was a good faith edit, and for giving your reason. I won't change it back, but I still think it looks weird for only that song in the sequence to not be linked.

And I apologize if this isn't the right place for this note. I'm still learning stuff. :) Yesthatbruce (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:REPEATLINK. Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Sundayclose. In these edits on Natalie Portman, you cited several sources that don't fully support the claim or demonstrate that the claim is due. Not all the journals cited verify the paper's release year, so the use of some to indirectly draw any connection is inappropriate. The other source cited, Oracle of Bacon, published a completely different number than what is neutrally claimed in the article. Are there reliable sources that highlight Portman's Erdős–Bacon number as uniquely meaningful and correlate it to a specific project that she's done? KyleJoan^talk 02:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CALC. Establishing a Bacon number with oracleofbacon.org has been determined by consensus at Talk:Erdős–Bacon number as a reliable means of establishing a Bacon number because it is based on the database of actors and roles at IMDb.com. Although IMDB generally is not acceptable for many uses, it is reliable for cast lists. In any event, if you click the link in the citation to IMDb, the actors and films in the link are provided, which are easily verified by clicking the names of the films. Please don't revert cites to oracleofbacon.org. I agree that the www.rrrjewishtrivia.com source is not reliable, but it's not needed anyway. Sundayclose (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a really far stretch of what CALC permits and reaches beyond what my cursory understanding of what that consensus supports. It's one thing to have verifiable Erdos and Bacon numbers and using CALC to determine the Erdos-Bacon number. What we have here is a verifiable Bacon number (still not established as due via multiple sources) and an unverifiable Erdos number determined via CALC, which are then put together to create an synthesized, unverifiable Erdos-Bacon number. Not only does that violate SYNTH, it also violates the

due weight policy. If you're arguing that Oracle of Bacon by itself is reliable for a Bacon number, then why not just add a Bacon number to every BLP where a number has been assigned? Why use CALC to determine an Erdos number and then improperly synthesize an Erdos-Bacon number? KyleJoan^talk 03:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WT:NOR, the Portman talk page, or the EBN talk page. If you want to question whether the Erdos-Bacon number itself is notable, please take it up at the talk page. The article has been nominated for deletion three times, each time with a consensus to keep it. But if you want to venture a fourth nomination, please do so. Sundayclose (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

But 5 isn't the number on Portman's article. It's 7, which violates CALC because it is not "a meaningful reflection of the sources". I'm only speaking about the Erdos-Bacon number in relation to Portman. If I removed a BLP subject's poorly sourced sexual orientation, would you think I had an issue with sexual orientation and wanted that article deleted? KyleJoan^talk 03:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan: Jesus Christ, think before you leave a message. Erdos number is 5. Bacon number is 2. 5+2=7. EBN is 7. Take this to the article talk page and stop splitting hairs and annoying the hell out of me. Sundayclose (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you keep confronting socks on their talk pages and threatening to report them rather than just reporting? Seems like a waste of time to give them endless warnings after they've already been blocked a thousand times Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: Thanks for your message, but did you look at the date on that edit?? I have made at least five or six SPI reports on Cadeken socks. I haven't done so in about a year because Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster and I got tired of it. As for the edit you linked, it can be a collossal waste of time doing an SPI report on an IP because CU never confirms an IP, only registered users. I don't think I have any obligation to watch for Cadeken socks and report them. I mean no offense and I apologize in advance if this message bothers you, but your message is puzzling. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you have any "obligation" to hunt down Cadeken socks. All I'm suggesting is that when you encounter a sock, it might be a better idea to

deny recognition, report and move on instead of making a fuss about it on their talk. All that does is give them the attention they desire. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: Thanks for the suggestion. I've generally found with Cadeken IP socks that stating that another edit will result in an SPI report is often sufficient to make the IP stop using that IP address. Trust me, I've spent a lot of time dealing with Cadeken socks, registered and nonregistered. I've seen a pattern. But if you'd like, if I run across a suspected Cadeken IP sock, I'll let you know then you can handle it the way you think is best. I've wasted enough time on Cadeken. I have better things to do, on Wikipedia and in the real world. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sundayclose,

I realize that editor Totocugno is hitting all of your buttons but please do not get caught up in an edit war yourself. If necessary, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring rather than continuing to revert. I posted a warning to their talk page but they were just removed. I understand you are exasperated today but I just wanted to remind you that when two editors are involved with edit warring, they usually both face sanctions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks Liz. Point taken. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sundayclose!

• The
  New Pages Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read
  project talk page
  with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
  applying here
  .

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information I put forth was in the Snopes article that was cited. I was merely adding more information from the same source. ErichoTTA (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously because of the legal liability. And another problem: You need to cite a reliable source for the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

MrOllie: Good point. Thanks for the info. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Friday the 13th franchise article overview content looks weird with different film merged together Milighuh (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Milighuh: Get consensus for your changes on the article talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got a talk page message from Iss246 insisting on communicating with me by email, but they refuse to provide any explanation. When I hopped on their talk page, I caught a glimpse of them saying they emailed you. In the interest of transparency, I prefer keeping all correspondence regarding Wikipedia on Wiki. Seeing they were just in contact with me on my talk page about email and how they just emailed you suggest whatever it is might be related to psychology topic. I wonder why they refuse to discuss in the open. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I copy-pasted the email to me below. I will not play immature games by surreptitiously trying to triangulate one editor against another. I'll leave it to you to speculate whether you would have received a similar email about me. I've tried to assume good faith with Iss246 and mostly stayed neutral on the issue of the Spector websites until edit warring occurred. Sundayclose (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I write to address a matter that arose because Graywalls unknowingly--I emphasize unknowingly--, because he is admittedly unfamiliar with IO psychology, made mistake that I hesitate to correct or address publicly. He refuses to have an email exchange with me. I thought I would write to you because you are a reasonable person. I say that and acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about things. Sometimes our passions heat up an argument more than the argument merits.

On August 28 on the WikiProject Psychology talk page Graywalls criticized the stevenspector website on the grounds that Steven Spector is not a known researcher. I am an IO psychology insider. Like other IO insiders, I know that the stevenspector site was created by Steven and Paul Spector, a highly respected researcher with an h-index of 91 and more than 400 publications. Like other IO insiders, I know that Spector named the site to honor his son, Steven, who died long before his time. The site is a joint product of Steven and his dad.

I did not want to argue about about the site's name on the WikiProject Psychology talk page. It would be unseemly. If Spector or his wife would happen to see that argument, it could be painful. I don't want to add to that pain. Perhaps you can tactfully ensure that the website would remain in place. It is an excellent site and that it is not-for-profit.

iss246

Sundayclose (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eagle_Scouts&diff=1174621102&oldid=1174620843

that is the second time you bogus templated me. Did you read the edit summary? NO. Did you read what I removed? NO Your BS post says I removed a template and I didn't. One of the bits is that he's an Eagle Scout and that's obvious by being on the list so it's fluff. so is being a 7th generation Texan. NOT NOTALBLE INFO FOR THE LIST. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND STAY AWAY FROM ME AND LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree that the term "role" only applies to film (Protagonist/antagonist/etc. are ways to describe a character's role in a story, written or otherwise), my reason for that edit was primarily to fix the incorrect grammar in that sentence. Using the word "character" does not grammatically follow the verb "appeared in" established in the first clause, i.e. "She appeared in [...] a supporting character" is incorrect, hence my edit. One can "appear in a role", but "appear in a character" sounds wrong and unnatural. If you insist on keeping the word "character", the sentence would need to be rewritten with an additional preposition or verb. Such as "She also appeared in Finders Keepers and End of Watch, and as a supporting character in The Outsider" or "[...] and was a supporting character in..." or something like that. Just my thoughts, thanks. Robber93 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robber93: Thanks for you message. I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly. There is nothing ungrammatical about "She appeared in Finders Keepers ...". I just now changed the second clause to "and later was a major supporting character in The Outsider". Now there should be no grammatical issues. I must disagree about "roles" in novels. Actors audition for "roles". Novelists create "characters", not roles. Read Etymology 1 at role. But with the change I made, that is now a moot point. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, an IP changed it back to the outdated information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: No, the IP did not change the citation. I first reverted because the citation was outdated. You reverted me, restoring the same outdated citation. I then updated the citation. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must have done something wrong when I looked at the history.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atomoxetine must be highly effective in improving school performance as it can enhance significantly their attention span, impulse control, academic performance, and peer relationships. As noted from the highly substantiated meta-analysis that it is equally efficacious as methylphenidate. It is logically impossible to entertain the possibility that it can be simultanously as effective as MTH yet have no benefit on school performance while MTH does therefore referencing single outdated 2014 study should be removed in my view. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

synthesized conclusion. Research must specifically state that academic performance is improved. I've treated dozens of kids with medication that decreased measured ADHD symptoms, but academic performance stayed the same. I've also treated quite a few who showed no overall improvement on standard measures of ADHD symptoms, but who improved academic performance. That can be true for many psych meds. Measured symptoms can improve, but that does not mean functioning in specific settings will improve. If A sometimes causes B, and A sometimes causes C, that does not necessarily mean that if A causes B, then A must cause C. That's basic science. Sundayclose (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for replying but I’m sorry to say it does not stand up to serious inspection.

The symptomatic management of ADHD includes improving executive functioning to reduce impairment. No impairment no disorder. The most impairing aspect of ADHD is often in academic performance.

If the medication is equally effective as methylphenidate in altering those symptoms, then it’s silly to assume academic performance has no correlation with it or little at best.

I see your point that there *may* not be research specifically reviewing that but the requirement for additional studies is needed not to validate if it occurs or not but to see the degree of improvement in comparison to other treatment interventions either as alternatives or supplementation.

Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:Wikiproject Medicine. This issue is bigger than you and me, so discussion needs to be on the article talk page. Thanks for discussing instead of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for writing.

I see your point however you're not taking in account that most of the studies comparing the effects between ATX & MTH use academic performance as contributing factors in rating alteration in innattentive, hyperactive and impulsive symptoms - whether or not it is the main objective of the study.

The very fact that this is the case supports benefits in academic performance and the conclusion is not implied.

So once again, I wouldn't consider this a synthesised conclusion as I am utilising the available information specified in the studies, especially those reviewed by the meta-analysis.

Regarding real world experience, I'm well aware certain agents may not affect productivity/performance in academia however when it comes to ADHD the notion is generally unsupportable.

Then, again, my aim is not to synthesise conclusions at all and I stand by the fact that said research does use academia as a core factor in achieving their results.

Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have added a

Hello! Voting in the

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

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

The

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

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On the Stephen King page, you said the story has "nothing to do with repressed memory." It has everything to do with traumatic amnesia, since King describes it as a textbook case of traumatic amnesia in Danse Macabre, where the story originates. Moreover, he offered it as an explanation for what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he resented, a question he admits he used to "confabulate" about and a question to which he has offered other, simpler, explanations. Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is usually correct. And, as noted, traumatic amnesia is common enough in fiction (including King's fiction) but not real life.

The science on traumatic amnesia is clear: see again, Loftus, Elizabeth; Ketchum, Katherine, The Myth of Repressed Memory. 1994; and McNally, R. J., "The Science and Folklore of Traumatic Amnesia", Clinical Psychology, Harrison Pope, Mihcael P. Poliakoff, Michael B. Parker, Matthew Boynes and James B. Hudson, Is dissociative amnesia a culture-bound syndrome? Findings from a survey of historical literature, Physiological Medicine. You asked where King claimed to have recovered the memory; a non-sequitur, as those articles don't debunk recovered memory, they debunk repressed memory, which is what King described it as in Danse Macabre. The title of Loftus's article is "The Myth of Repressed Memory", not "The Myth of Recovered Memory". If the story were true, King would, almost certainly, recall it, as traumatic events are usually the ones we recall most clearly. He does not. So "he has no memory of the event" falsifies the story with high confidence. He would also, presumably, mention it in his memoir or in subsequent interviews. He does not.

When Terry Gross asked him about his childhood and how he became interested in horror, he replied, “I’ve been queried a lot about how I got interested in this stuff. And at some point, a lot of interviewers just turn into Dr. Freud and put me on the couch and say, ‘what was your childhood like?’ And I say various things, and I confabulate a little bit and just kind of dance around the question as best I can, but bottom line – my childhood was pretty ordinary, except that from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did.” (See Gross, Terry, Stephen King: ‘My Imagination Was Very Active — Even At A Young Age’ National Public Radio). (Gross doesn't ask him about the story, probably because she has a good bullshit detector.) That's consistent with what he says in the introduction to Night Shift (1978), where he says that most of us have at least some interest in horror and that, for most of us, this starts in childhood. It's consistent, too with what he's said in subsequent interviews. In Rolling Stone, when asked about his interest in horror, he says: "It's built in. That's all." That is, it's inherent; no need for an origin story. At this point, I shouldn't need to say that he makes no mention of the story. (See Greene, Andy. Stephen King: The Rolling Stone Interview. October 31, 2014.) It's established that King makes no mention of the story at all in his memoir, On Writing (2000). And, indeed, in that book he offers a simple explanation for why he writes horror: "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin, that's all. If you disapprove, I can only shrug my shoulders. It's what I have.” " (King, On Writing, 158). "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin"; which is to say it's part of human nature, or at least his nature. That's more parsimonious than the baroque tale told in Danse Macabre. If you I asked if you could find any interviews since then where King mentions the story. You could not.

I asked if you could find any examples of King mentioning the incident in recent interviews. You did not. Something can be inferred from that, especially when King admits he used to "confabulate" about what happened in his youth to make him write horror. In recent years when he has, presumably, stopped "confabulating", he has stopped telling the story.

One of the "reliable sources" you cited, Looper, doesn't seem very reliable at all. On their homepage, you'll find such articles as "Is Mr. Bean An Alien? A Very Wild And Believable Fan Theory Explained", "Star Wars: What Sebula Looks Like In Real Life", "What Sid From Toy Story Looks Like In Real Life" and "This Horrific Finding Nemo Fan Theory Changes Everything About Marlin". (The title of a film must be italicized, something they don't seem to have cottoned onto.) Not exactly The New York Times. It has, on the home page alone, several articles devoted to "nude scenes", for the reason, I suspect, that that generates clicks. Nor is the article you cited very good; it reads like clickbait, and the source they cite is Danse Macabre (a source which is unreliable, seeing how, not to beat a dead horse, King offers the story as an explanation for why he writes horror, a question he resented and which he admits he used to "confabulate" about.) The other source you cite is George Beahm's, The Stephen King Story. And who does Beahm cite? It's King in Danse Macabre, isn't it?

No need to belabor the obvious: since King told the story once in 1981 as an explanation of why he writes horror but not before or since; since the story is described as a case of traumatic amnesia, something common in enough in fiction (including King's fiction) but not real life; since King makes no mention of the story in his memoir or in subsequent interviews; since King has, before and since, offered other, simpler explanations of why he writes horror ("from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did"); since there are no direct quotes from family members mentioning the story, and since he admits he used to "confabulate" when asked what happened in his youth to make him write horror, the story does not belong in the biography section, where it is damaging the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia.

Thanks, though, for turning me on to Looper. As Joe Gillis says of Norma Desmond's screenplay, "Sometimes it's interesting to see just how bad bad writing can be. This promised to go the limit." Looper goes beyond the limit. On their homepage alone, you'll find three articles in a row about nude scenes: Why Alison Brie's Full-Frontal Nude Scene In Somebody I Used To Know Is So Personal, How Eva Green Really Feels About Shooting Nude Scenes and The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes. Not quite as scholarly as Physiological Medicine. It reads more like Clickhole, The Onion's sister site which satirizes clickbait sites like Buzzfeed. But Looper makes Buzzfeed look like The New York Times. If you do a search for Looper on fact-checking sites like Media Bias/Fact Check, you'll get a null result, probably because they don't think it merits mention. It doesn't merit mention here, either. The story is damaging the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia; it should go without saying that the link to Looper damages the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia.

Charlie Faust (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at one of the "reliable sources" you cited, Looper. It doesn't seem very reliable at all. Since you think this is an example of a reliable source, I think it merits analysis.

Here's a random sample of a Looper article: "This Horrific Finding Nemo Fan Theory Changes Everything About Marlin". (The title of a film, like that of a novel or play, must be italicized, though the people at Looper haven't cottoned onto this.) That may be the least of their problems; their idea of a reliable source is "TikTok influencer @‌mndiaye_97. The hypothesis directly attacked one of the core elements that make "Finding Nemo" such a tear-jerker." (Again, the title of a film, in this case Finding Nemo, must be italicized.) As for the "hypothesis", they seem to have a tenuous grasp on the term: "In essence, the idea here is that a barracuda wouldn't eat a clownfish. However, female clownfish are bigger and stronger than males. They're also willing to devour their own young. What if Marlin's wife, Coral, ate the couple's entire family in one go, and Marlin was too weak to stop her? Following this much darker timeline, one could assume Marlin's barracuda story is just a devastated father in denial. He's made up the story to help him forget the fact that his wife cannibalized his own kids. Even worse, the influencer posits that his only surviving son is a made-up fiction Marlin created, naming him Nemo. The translation of that title from ancient Latin? 'Nobody.'"

Oh man, where to start? It's been a while since I've seen Finding Nemo but as I recall characters other than Marlin interact with Nemo, which would seem to rule out the possibility of his being a figment of Marlin's imagination. He is, you might say, the second star of the film, if not the first; he gets the movie named after him. As for "female clownfish are bigger and stronger than males", who cares? They don't talk, either. The filmmakers weren't going for scientific accuracy. "The translation of that title from ancient Latin? 'Nobody.'" Huh? What's "ancient Latin"? As opposed to what, modern Latin? As for why he's named Nemo, I'm guessing it's a reference to Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the Disney film adapted from Jules Verne's novel. Even if it's not, that's more parsimonious than whatever that Tiktok influencer dreamed up. Feel free to peruse Looper; maybe their article "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes" is better.

This is your idea of a reliable source? I will say that the Tiktok fantasy is about as plausible as positing that King writes horror because, as a child, he saw a friend hit by a train, an event he has no memory of and makes no mention of at all in his memoir or in subsequent interviews.

Either come up with a better source (better than Looper is, admittedly, a low bar) or I'm axing the story. Charlie Faust (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions regarding Loopers reliability: here and here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love this exchange: How "reliable" is entertainment news site Looper.com? Specifically for citing in the article

Prisoners (1981 film). Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Charlie Faust (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

To quote the great Billy Wilder, "Sometimes it's interesting to see just how bad bad writing can be. This promised to go to limit." Looper goes beyond the limit. Charlie Faust (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sunday, just so we're clear: you think Looper is a "reliable source"? The same source that gave us the above article, "This horrific Finding Nemo Fan Theory Changes Everything About Marlin"? Granted, the "theory" in the article is about as plausible as saying that King writes horror because he witnessed a friend being hit by a train, an event he has no memory of and makes no mention of in his memoir or any subsequent interviews. You could prove me wrong; maybe their article "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes" is a masterpiece. I doubt it. But you seem to maintain that Looper is reliable.

Man oh man, I have to disagree. I don't think Looper is reliable, not at all. Simonm223, asked about the reliability of Looper, responded: "Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan." I have to say I agree. Charlie Faust (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You write that "This material has been in the article for years".

So? A lot of stuff on Wikipedia is flat-out wrong. That's true of this page, actually; an earlier edition said that King sought treatment shortly after the publication of Cujo. Wrong, wrong, wrong; Cujo was published in 1981 and King didn't seek treatment until 1987, six years later. That matters because addiction provides the subtext for many books published after Cujo, notably Misery and The Tommyknockers (both 1987). As King told The Paris Review, Misery is a book about addiction; "Annie was my drug problem, and she was my number one fan. God, she never wanted to leave." He was in the throes of addiction while writing it. That doesn't make sense if, as the article used to say, he got treatment shortly after Cujo.

Saying "it's been in the article for years" may be an argument, but not a convincing one.

As for things on Wikipedia being wrong, where to start? An earlier edition of the page for John Williams said he was "heavily influenced by Richard Wagner". Passing strange, since he told Alex Ross in The New Yorker that he "really [doesn't] know Wagner's operas at all" and that if people hear Wagner in his music, "It's not because I put it there." (See Ross, Alex, "The Force is Still Strong With John Williams", The New Yorker.) And yet Williams's supposed debt to Wagner was there, in the header, no less. No reason for it to be there, when it can be falsified easily. And even if it had been there for years (it may have been, for all I know) that's no reason for it to be there. Saying "it's been in the article for years" sounds like an appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are useless.

Should go without saying that the link to Looper (noted by other editors as a "notorious clickbait website" that should make you "consider a malware scan") I'd like to know what you think is an unreliable source.

Charlie Faust (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of being involved with an edit war, presumably because I removed the tale of the train. But I did not. Simonm223 (talk) did, correctly noting that it's a silly story that King himself has no faith in. Look at the history, and you'll see I didn't remove it. Apparently people on WP are in the habit of commenting on things they haven't read. Charlie Faust (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you posted on my page about the "edit war", you accused me of removing the story on 16:17, 14 March 2024‎. But if you look at the history, you'll find it was Simonm223 talk contribs‎, who duly notes that "The quote from danse macabre was being misrepresented. King refers to the idea that an event he doesn't remember and that may not have happened when he was four as specious and little better than astrology."

You say I should "discuss, not edit war" (that shouldn't be used as a verb, but whatever.) I have tried to reach consensus on the story. Were the tale true King would, presumably, have mentioned it before or since Danse Macabre. On the talk page, I asked if anyone could find any subsequent interviews where King mentions it. No dice. Were it true, it would, presumably, be mentioned by King's family members in print (in Danse Macabre, it's presented as a secondhand anecdote, something his mother may have told once.) On the talk page, I asked if anyone knew of any direct quotes from family members that mention it. No dice.

Simonm duly notes on the talk page that King himself seems to have little faith in the story, that he told it once at a convention when asked what happened in his youth to make him write horror. That is a question he has offered other, simpler explanations to, and about which he admits he used to "confabulate." The page used to tell us that it may have "psychologically inspired some of King's darker works" (whatever that means.) But how could it have "psychologically inspired" King if he has no memory of it? And, in Danse Macabre itself, King dismisses the notion as "totally specious" and "little better than astrology." Simonm is again correct that the one source that counts in the case dismisses the notion that it inspired him, "psychologically" or otherwise.

You say it is "sourced", but is it reliably sourced? Who does Beahm cite as a reference? It's King in Danse Macabre, isn't it? That's unreliable, seeing how, in that book, King offers it as an explanation of what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he resented and about which he admits he used to "confabulate." And, crucially, King has not told the tale before or since. Earlier, you said I shouldn't remove it because "it has been in the article for years". And? That sounds like an appeal to groupthink, surely a dubious ethos for an encyclopedia. And there are things on WP which are flat wrong, some of which have been there for years. On the King page, under Personal life, we were told his wife staged an intervention "shortly after Cujo was published." But that's wrong: Cujo was published in 1981 and King's wife staged an intervention after The Tommyknockers, in 1987. That may have been in the article for years; it should never have been there at all. WP encourages us to "be bold" in making edits. If you see something wrong, it's gotta go, even if it's been there for years. Something having been on WP for years is no reason for its being there, especially if it should never have been there at all.

But your accusation that I removed the story on 6:17, 14 March 2024‎ is false. I didn't do it. Simonm223 did, duly noting that it's a silly story that the teller told once and even then didn't seem to have much faith in.. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see I'm right about this, but people on WP are apparently in the habit of commenting on things they haven't read. Charlie Faust (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I may say so, kudos to Simonm223 for removing the story, which they duly describe as "a silly story" which King told once and even then "had no faith in.":

With that being said this is entirely nothing if one actually reads the statement in Danse Macabre in context. King concludes the annecdote [sic] saying, "I believe this is a totally specious idea - such shoot-from-the-hip psychological judgments are little more than jumped up astrology."

Pursuant to this I will be removing the reference to the train from the article. It's something that the only reliable source treats as irrelevant. A silly story he told at a convention to play along that had no significance to him and that he held no faith in.

You'll find that on the talk page. If you read Danse Macabre, King says it's something his mother told him once but that he has no memory of, and calls the notion that it influenced him "totally specious" and "little better than astrology." And, tellingly, he has never told the tale before or since Danse Macabre.

Simmonm223 is doing G_d's work in ripping on Looper, the execrable clickbait site that was cited, saying "If you've visited, consider a malware scan." Another editor,

WP:VG/S lists Looper as unreliable. They've got a real clickbait/churnalism problem with their video game coverage at least. Unlikely it's relegated just to that content area." Maybe their articles on literature are better, but they don't seem to have many articles on literature, besides the King article linked to. Maybe there's something about literature in their article "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes", but I doubt it. Feel free to peruse it and let me know if you find anything of value but, as noted, consider a malware scan. Charlie Faust (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]