User talk:Sundayclose/Archive January 2022 through December 2022

You state that my edit of 8 January 2022 changed the meaning.

Original version:

Muslim men, both

Shia

, are allowed to marry permanently up to four women, women are only allowed to be married to one husband at a time.

Okay, so let's figure out what's the same and what's different:

1. Suni and Shia men are allowed to marry permanently up to four women. (same)
2. Shia recognizes temporary marriages. Revised version doesn't explicitly state that sexual intercourse is permitted, nor does it explicitly state that Shia women may enter temporary marriages. These are implied, i.e. marriage implies that intercourse is permitted, Shia's recognition of temporary marriages implies the recognition of temporary marriage between a Shia man and a Shia women.
3. The original version specifies there may be an unlimited number of temporary marriages, while the revised version does not. This seems to be implied by the fact that it's a temporary marriage.
4. The last "string of words ending in a period" of the original version is not a sentence; the revised version does not have this problem.

Possible modifications to the revised version

1. We could explicitly state that Shia permits sexual intercourse in a temporary marriage.
2. We could clarify whether Shia recognizes temporary marriages only if the husband or the wife is Shia.
3. We could explicitly state that Shia has no limit on the number of (presumably sequential) temporary marriges

Which of these modifications do you think would address your concern that my revised version has changed the meaning? Fabrickator (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia is written for the reader, not editors who already understand the details; we often lose sight of that. Some readers may not realize that in a culture unfamiliar to them intercourse is always permitted, especially a culture that permits polygamy. Similarly, "temporary marriage" does not necessarily indicate "unlimited" number of marriages to the naive reader. "Shia women may enter temporary marriages": I agree this is implied. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

How curious is this? The original version only points out that intercourse is permitted for the case in which the marriage is temporary. A marriage in which intercourse is not permitted is the exception. As examples, a "non-consumated" marriage may be (in certain religions, at least) subject to annulment, and in Islam, in a marriage to an underage female, intercourse is required to be delayed. Furthermore, you claim that omitting a statement that intercourse is permitted constitutes

WP:OR

, that really is original.

So the other issue you've raised is failure to state that there is no limit on the number of temporary marriages. The existing statement claims this to be the case for the man, though the fact is that we only know that there is not a limit on the number of such (presumably sequential) marriages (for a man), yet there is no reason to believe that there is not some other sort of limitation. We are not obliged to provide total knowledge of a subject. The source seems to suggest that there may be a requirement of a delay in time between marriages (e.g. following the end of the marriage), but is rather vague on this. We cannot say something without a valid source to support it; the only really acceptable option, in the absence of a source to support it, is to remain silent. Given the fact that the current text is ungrammatical, it is not an option to leave it the way it is. I will be awaiting a constructive proposal from you. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I think you misunderstand. I didn't state that omitting a statement is original research; I said that your assumption that it is implied is OR. Perhaps a better way to state that is, a naive reader will not necessarily assume an implication that you assume. What I am saying is that it needs to be stated that intercourse is permitted in temporary marriages. That is stated unequivocally in the original version, and I assume the source is reliable. Explain how your version states (except by implication) that intercourse is permitted in a temporary marriage.

You state: "The original version specifies there may be an unlimited number of temporary marriages, while the revised version does not. This seems to be implied by the fact that it's a temporary marriage." How specifically does the statement that temporary marriages are permitted necessarily imply that the number of temporary marriages is unlimited. There is a difference in saying that something is permitted and saying that it is permitted with no limit. How does your version make that distinction? Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple rule, which is generally understood about marriage even in different cultures:

• Ordinarily, you may have intercourse with those to whom you are married, at least if both parties are agreeable.
• Assuming the only thing preventing you from marrying is the fact that you are already married, then when your existing marriage ends, the objection that you are already married ceases.

Now the fact is, Islam may have rules imposing some other constraints (e.g. a man must be able to properly support all his wives), but in this context, we are not obliged to provide all possible details. When one temporary marriage ends, that certainly suggests that one would be eligible to begin another temporary marriage, same as if it had not been established as a temporary marriage. Maybe the man doesn't even have to wait, and can have multiple temporary marriages concurrently. We don't need to go there. If someone wants to know all the rules, they will need to get involved in further study of the culture and religion, there is no pretense that all possible scenarios are presented here. Multiple spouses and temporary marriages are on point here precisely because these are likely to be distinct from what the reader is accustomed to. Fabrickator (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrickator: With your permission, I would like to copy this discussion to the article's talk page. I think we need more opinions. I feel that we disagree on some points, and that one or both of us is misunderstanding the other. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Fabrickator (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I saw that you reverted something about wine decanting on the Common Misconceptions page, then I looked at the guy who posted it originally, saw that it was his second post ever, went to suggest that he find a citation and try again, and then I saw that you had already done so. Thanks for doing your due diligence and for helping the newbies. I wish more experienced editors had done that for me when I was just starting out, so I appreciate seeing it. Thanks for what you do on the Common Misconceptions page in general. Joe (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Made an edit to the page the part i edited was "As of 2021" i changed "2021" to 2022 because the year right now is 2022 PERCYJACKSONFAN1234 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PERCYJACKSONFAN1234: The source doesn't state a year. Everything must be sourced. Read W:V. By the way, it is not necessary to put 30 lines of unnecessary white space between your comment and your signature. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I had a read through

Might I respectfully ask why the *censored* you reverted this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auto-antonym&oldid=prev&diff=1005623370 and tagged it "Twinkle"?

@

WP:EXAMPLEFARM." You don't have any special privileges here. Please, don't come back here arguing if you can't follow consensus. And don't whine because other entries are not sourced. Feel free to remove or tag unsourced information, but don't expect me to completely fix an article before removing new unsourced information. Sundayclose (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States#1970s. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>Mazza has been in jail for over 47 years, now he is released and exonerated. Not sure why you removed him from the list. Multiple sources are given.Garnhami (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I realize this isn't the world's biggest issue, but I'm new at this, so can you pls help me to understand how to think about this? (and I'm surprised I need to post this on your page, rather than in context on the Nerd talk page?) Regarding the "Gnurd Crossing" picture on MIT Museum's website supporting the "gnurd" spelling at MIT during that time… I would think the MIT Museum would be a reputable source for MIT history. This photo is recognizably of the MIT ballfields, and the building in the background is the Westgate Apartments graduate housing which can be seen in Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The museum captions the photo as "Gnurd Crossing sign, early 1970s". What's not to love? Isn't a photo from a reputable source which directly shows the spelling a more valuable, engaging, powerful way to substantiate it than a reference in an obscure book that no one will see? Anyway, pls let me know how to better think about this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone77 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keystone77: I understand about being new. We've all been there. The picture is of interest, but not as a source. Without any other information, the image only confirms that on the day the photo was taken someone had written "GNURD" on a sign. And the sentence in the Wikipedia article is already adequately sourced. The real value of the image would be if it could actually be included in Nerd, but unfortunately it is under copyright and cannot be used. Unless, of course, you could convince MIT to allow Wikipedia to use it. They might very well do that; what do they have to lose? You might want to contact them.

Someone left a welcome message on your talk page. It has a lot of useful links that can help you find your way around. It takes a while to get the hang of it. If you don't get the help you need, place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a description of your concern and someone will come along to help. You can also inquire at

good faith. Keep editing. As long as you don't vandalize and don't ignore more experienced editors, you'll be OK. You did the right thing by bringing your concern here. You also did the right thing by raising the issue on the article talk page; that article probably doesn't get a lot of traffic, so no one responded. Actually, I should have made a comment there in addition to reverting your edit. By the way, sign your posts on talk pages (but not articles) by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. Happy editing! Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Sundayclose. I write because you have made constructive edits to the article on the documentary The Fear of 13 in the past. Would you look at the newly added section entitled Controversy and take appropriate action if you agree with me that it lacks a reliable source and is probably inappropriate for other policy reasons that I don't know enough WP-lingo to articulate? I would do it myself, but I have been accused (unjustly, imho, but nevertheless ...) of having a conflict of interest with respect to the subject of the film, so I thought it best to seek a respected and experienced opinion from someone else first. PDGPA (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Your crusade against “eponymous” is just and righteous. Godspeed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just wanted to pick up with you about the revert of the term eponymous. Could you please kind point out where "Removing this word in this circumstance is widely supported among the Wikipedia community"? Has this been discussed anywhere and is there are a MOS note about it? Would be useful for future reference to refer others too.

As for your comment "Even with your odd interpretation, it's still entirely unnecessary and poor writing" - according to who is it odd? You because it doesn't make sense to you personally? Even though I've quoted to you a dictionary search as seen here? Unless there was specific consensus pointing it out then "unnecessary and poor writing" is subjective. I didn't find your edit summary in the spirit of

By the way, I'm not having a go - genuinely if there was been a consensus that the wording is awkward/shouldn't be used then fair enough. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:BRD. That's not bad faith, it's just making sure you are aware of the policy before you revert again. You are required to get consensus to restore the word "eponymous". As for the Wikipedia community, if you look at my edit history, I have legitimately removed the word from hundreds of album articles over a period of months (years actually, but more actively in recent months). So far, only you and one other editor have reverted me. That one other editor was immediately reverted by another editor (not me) so that the word was again removed. Several editors have thanked me for my efforts, one of whom gave me a barnstar (scroll up to see it). Your assumption that there is a difference between "eponymous" and "eponymously-titled" is very strained logic. The two have identical meanings. In both cases, it is entirely redundant and unnecessary. That makes it poor writing. That's not a criticism of you personally or even your overall edits. It's just my attempt at keeping Wikipedia up to reasonable writing standards. I'll be happy to discuss this with you further, but any additional discussion should be at Talk:Ciara (album) so that others can be aware and participate. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider me won over and sold ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work removing these pointless terms from so many articles. If you haven't seen it already, the

@

WP:ELEVAR, which I think is a superb essay, and I thank you for writing it. I've linked it in other edit summaries, but not for eponymous. Now that I think about it, I might link it in my edit summaries for eponymous. I've been copying and pasting the edit summary because that sometimes prevents editors from mindlessly restoring "eponymous", but I think linking to your essay might provide additional support. I'm so glad we have editors like you. It's a breath of fresh air. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool! And sorry I didn't recall our previous discussion, my memory ain't so hot. Popcornfud (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud: No apology needed. I've come to accept my memory slips due to advanced age. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply to your message on my talk page about this topic. I'd advise reading it because I feel I bring up some good points that are at least worth considering. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added source to the claim that Mardin played drums on A-ha song. Mortyman (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortyman: I couldn't find any information at [1] that Mardin played drums. Could you explain? Sundayclose (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortyman: Never mind, I found it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, to the claim that A-ha is just a new wawe band. A-ha is more than one genere of music. They are first and foremost a pop, rock band. You can read some of the reviews of the various albums here. Please note the reviews of Scoundrel Days, Memorial Beach and Analogue and revert your edit: https://www.thisisdig.com/feature/memorial-beach-a-ha-album/ and https://nearvana.net/2000/06/01/album-review-memorial-beach-a-ha/ and https://www.classicpopmag.com/2022/01/album-by-album-a-ha/</ref> Mortyman (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BURDEN: The responsibility is on you to provide reliable sources when you make an edit. This issue is not whether the genres are appropriate. The issue is reliable sourcing. Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I regard the sources above as reputable and serious enough as per guidelines. Are you gonna argue further ? Mortyman (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortyman: Argue further?? You are the one trying to argue by demanding that I revert my edit, and (I assume) you expected me to add the citations for you. I gave you a legitimate warning template for adding unsourced genres. I have not argued with you, nor do I plan to. But I do expect you to follow Wikipedia's policies. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are now added. ,Yes i frankly expected you to add the sources. When you treatend to block me if i edit further, as you did then you scare me. It is not acceptable to just cacually throw around such threats. Mortyman (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortyman: I did not "threaten to block you if you edit further". I did not "casually throw around" a threat. You violated a core Wikipedia policy, and you had already received several similar warnings. I gave you a necessary, standard warning template for adding unsourced genres in order to protect Wikipedia; no "threats" for any other edits. You have edited more than 15 years. There are a few things any editor would know with that much time editing: (1) reliable sources are required, including for genres; (2) no one has the responsibility to provide citations for you; and (3) if you receive multiple warnings from multiple editors, consider the possibility that the problem is with the way you edit, not everyone else. Unless I revert you again or you see that I have made an inappropriate edit, please don't message me here again, including a response to this message. I've wasted far too much time on something that could have been easily resolved. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war continues in

Hi, I added content myself to the ‘List of Mass Shootings’ and saw it had been removed. As far as I could tell I didn’t see anything on the talk page or in the article itself stating that an incident included on the list had to have an affiliated article on Wikipedia. I did source the incident I added from WP:RS so I was a bit surprised it had been removed. I see by going to the user’s talk page the same thing had happened to you. If it continues to happen I might suggest going to an admin. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I take that back... I restored and then had to go back and undo the restore because I saw a sentence buried as the last line in definitions where it should probably be in the lede. I don’t truly understand why something needs to have an article if the sourcing is valid but it’s not a hill to die on. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that's not how

I saw that you thanked me for reverting. This IP (through several addresses), has been going around changing the description of people to match their categories (note the edit summaries), and seems to be wrong in most cases. Consider, for example, this Golden Globe and BAFTA award-winning actress/singer. S/he wants to delete the statement that the subject is also an actress. S/he has done this on many articles. Any idea what ought to be done about it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: If it keeps happening, we may have to seek a range block. Sometimes nuisance editors like this lose interest and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have already made a lot of edits under this IP address and are making more under this one. I wonder how many other IP addresses they use? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: People with dynamic IPs often change IP addresses and it's not under their control. Both IPs are in Miami, FL. They haven't edited in about eight hours, so they may have already moved on. Several editors have reverted them. Sundayclose (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are continuing to edit war at multiple articles. One of their IP addresses has been blocked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: It's a range block. That should stop it for a while. Sundayclose (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP has continued their behavior of disruptive editing, now in the form of personal attacks on talk pages, I have reported them to

The IP account has now been blocked for a week for disruptive editing. SkylabField (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve noticed a bunch of my edits have been reverted by you like my edit to Reese Witherspoon and Ray Coulthard. You explained to me about the birth dates I get that. But why did you make so many reverts to my edits. I don’t really see a problem with them. Please do not revert to my edits anymore please. I feel like I am right. Beatlemania2002 (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beatlemania2002: Please look more closely. All I have reverted are the birth years in the short descriptions, and one edit where you did not provide a source. Please tell me if I reverted anything else. I'm not sure what you mean by "I feel like I am right". Right about what? Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted all my edits to

You can restore some or all of your edits if you explain what you are doing with

WP:REGISTER. Sundayclose (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! I have a question, on the page for women on death row I see that Jessica Hann was added a while ago, since Jessica is a transgender woman I was wondering if Skylar Preciosa Deleon and Amber McLaughlin (also transgender women) could be added to the list, investigating I saw that their states already recognized them as women. 38.25.7.100 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]