User talk:CodeTalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


March 2020[edit]

This guy or woman is amazing he fixed a mistake that a 12 year old did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.19.35 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, CodeTalker. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pillar Point Harbor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breakwater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi CodeTalker! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Linking to Commons photo without displaying photo, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

70.121.95.176[edit]

Thanks for reporting; would you mind cleaning up after this IP? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks L235; yes, I'll take a stab at it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seedball Edits[edit]

Hi there! I see that you have reverted 16 of my edits to the Seedball page without explanation. I was curious if you had some reasoning? Let me know, thanks. Uprisingengineer (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained Reversions[edit]

Hi, CodeTalker, I see that you have been going through my edit history and undoing or reverting some of my edits, often without explanation. Would you like to say why? For example, I see that you undid this. Do you have a problem with opossums being listed as marsupials and with rabbits and hares being grouped with other rodents? Currently the page is somewhat taxonomically incorrect. 021120x (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @021120x:, I'm sorry that you felt my edits had inadequate explanation. In the case of the edit which you cited, my summary was "rabbits are not rodents" which while brief, was I thought sufficiently clear. In case you disagree with this, check our rodent article, which says "Rabbits, hares, and pikas, whose incisors also grow continually, were once included with them [rodents], but are now considered to be in a separate order, the Lagomorpha." and our rabbit article, which says "Although once considered rodents, lagomorphs like rabbits have been discovered to have diverged separately and earlier than their rodent cousins, and have a number of traits rodents lack, like two extra incisors." So I think the page is more taxonomically correct as it stands. I do not recall reverting any other edits by you; are there others that you have questions about? CodeTalker (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker: Thanks. I also noticed you reverted this on the basis of it being "uncited". Here is a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee survey that shows that "Tennis Shoes" is not by any means unique to the Western US; it is used throughout the country (41.34% of the population). The statement can simply be that it is used in the West as well as most other parts of the United States outside of the Northeast. 021120x (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@021120x: I agree that your citation shows that "tennis shoes" is not unique to the Western US. In fact it seems more widely used in the Eastern US than in the Western US, where its use is mostly confined to the coast. The existing statement is cited to a different survey, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have nice geographic maps of its data, but some spot checking seems to show its results are similar to the UWM survey. (Nevada is much higher in the Harvard survey but that's probably because the UWM survey has very few respondents from Nevada.) In any case, rather than adding the names of more areas where the term is used, I think the entry should just be removed from the list, since it isn't a very good example of Western American English. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CodeTalker. Are you going to update the page, or should I do this? 021120x (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi CodeTalker! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Technical problem with timeline, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An apology for revision on Pumpkinhead II: Blood Eings[edit]

I apologise for adding Category:Supernatural fantasy films to the second Pumpkinhead film, since that other categories such as Category:Dark fantasy films and Category:American supernatural horror films have been added as categories for the film. I also added Category: American dark fantasy films for the film, since it’s already included in Category:American supernatural horror films, Category:American films and Category:American monster movies.

Clarification[edit]

Hello, first of all if you view the history of the page you will see that I did not enter them, but another user. Yesterday, having seen that a user has deleted the episodes, I proceeded to restore them, not knowing that the user had copied them from Fandom, but I know the copyright rules and I do not start to violate them so at random. I didn't copy them, I didn't know the user had copied them, I proceeded to insert them. The user should have specified that he copied. I restored the episodes thinking that they had been raised for vandalism, in this case the fault lies with the user, who entered the episodes knowing to copy, and the fault is not mine, I only restored information entered by the user. The fault is not mine, you should know what to enter on Wikipedia, first of which must specify when copying, and in case the user did not specify it, going against wikipedia rules. A user who sees that episodes have been deleted and does not see that the user who entered those episodes copied how does he understand that it is a violation, if there is not even an alert?.

~MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, Write — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Could you please answer me?

~MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, Write — Preceding undated comment added 11:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- To show that I don't break copyright rules, I calmly set out to look for who created the original Series 5, that you say I copied, well, if you view the history of the page, you'll see that who at To show that I don't violate copyright rules, I calmly set out to look for who created the original 5 series, that you say I copied, well, if you view the history of the page, you will see that those who violated the rules were 2600:6C4A:580:2BB8:F48F:6503:3994:4D1C, who created the original series 5, with the same writings as Fandom, and who created the original series 5, with the same writings as Fandom, and then 2600:6C4A:580:2BB8:61C2:A802:5742:DBD3 he expanded the rest, also with the same things as Fandom, I consequently not knowing that they had copied from Fandom I was shocked when I read your message because I will have read the copyright rules 100 times and I do not accept anyone tell me that I copied when I propio yesterday I reread the rules. I don't know Fandom, and only now I saw that the writings are identical, I proceeded to restore the original season 5 because I thought it had been eliminated for vandalism, and since the users did not leave warnings, how would I know?. On Wikipedia I think it is a must to know what to insert or not to insert, no?. I await answers.

~ MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, Write — Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma:, thanks for the clarification. There is no problem as long as the material has been removed. I just wanted to explain why I deleted the content that you restored, so you wouldn't think I deleted it without a good reason. CodeTalker (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much!, next time, to be foresight, I will see if the information taken by users is also on FANDOM.

~ MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, Write — Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

Hi CodeTalker, thank you very much for your report at Special:Diff/1018345911/1018351269. The main issue with this case was persistent disruptive behavior, which is probably best reported at WP:ANI. In cases of block evasion (current block, current evasion), WP:SPI is usually the place to go. If you already know about both reporting venues, feel free to ignore this message; I just thought it might be helpful for future similar cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you @ToBeFree:. CodeTalker (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said to talk to you[edit]

We had this Curious George page for years why keep reverting if it happened multiple times.

@2600:8801:208a:f00:60e7:5af2:6049:520e: The material you are wanting to add to the List of Curious George episodes article does not conform with the documentation of the Episode list template. If you click on that link and scroll down, you will see that it says that the AltDate field should be the "next notable air date"; that is, a single date, not a list of dates. It also says quite explicitly "Do not use {{Start date}} if |OriginalAirDate= is present", and has a footnote explaining why. My edits simply change the article to conform with the template documentation. If you have a reason why you believe your version is in conformance with the documentation, I invite you to continue the discussion I started on the article talk page here. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Okay you're right.

Your wrong on the B99[edit]

It isn't unsourced it is clearly seen in the show if you do your research so I'm putting it back. MrEdit223 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Brownian motion: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Seahawks4LifeTALKCONTRIBS 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics change[edit]

I put it down because of overlapping of infobox with table in Economy and don't add or remove any information- Therefore if there is a missing references it was so. Please, undo the changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.157.7.80 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add information to Economy Section[edit]

Most of information are translated from Wikipedia Article in Italian and German languages. Please, leave it there and i will add references later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.157.7.80 (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Annalena Baerbock[edit]

Hi, Code Talker. Your desire to interfere in German politics, on behalf of Annalena Baerbock, is rather funny. In Germany, there is the saying "Cobbler, please stick to your performance". Best regards from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:8F4A:F400:1A92:B3:EB4C:FC79 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jun 2021[edit]

Hey Why did you remove my edit? It was useful to readers and it was factual. Also, you mentioned commercial website, but there are other citations to commercial websites on the same page. Specifically, right above where i did the edit, so why do they get to keep their edit, but the one i provided does not get to stay? Also, the sage bathroom edit wording doesnt utilize the best grammar. So please let me know what is the reason for my edit being removed. Here is the citation and edit by Sage Bathrooms... "Modern digital equipment when used in conjunction with automatic chemical feeders results in stable pH and chlorine levels.[13] Local jurisdiction may demand a wait time if chemicals are added by hand to the water so that swimmers are not injured." And here is their website cited https://sagebathrooms.com/how-to-raise-chlorine-levels-in-a-pool/ And here is their about us description...Sage Bathrooms is the bathroom safety division of Sage Solutions for Independent Living, a federally incorporated (2002) company that markets products and services that improves residential safety and independence. Seems to me that there are commercial citations on the listing that get to stay for some reason? Please advise. Thanks

Hi AspenDecker, and welcome to Wikipedia! It is important that all additions to Wikipedia adhere to our policies and guidelines. In this case, the relevant guidelines are WP:ELNO item #5, which states that for external links, "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" should not be linked, and WP:VENDOR, which states that for citations "e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available". The page you linked to specifically describes one commercial product and offers to sell it to the reader; in other words its primary purpose is to sell a product. This doesn't really apply to the Sage Bathrooms link you mention, because that page, although part of the website of a commercial business, does not describe or even mention any of the company's products nor does it suggest that the reader should buy anything from them. (Note the footnote in WP:ELNO#5, which says that the linked page should be evaluated in isolation, not with reference to other pages in the site.) If you can find non-commercial references which discuss the "smart chemistry" topic, you are welcome to add them. If you disagree that the luv2swim page exists primarily to sell a product, you should open a discussion on the Swimming pool sanitation talk page so that other editors can comment. Thanks! (Also, please note that when you add a comment to any talk page, you should sign your comment by adding four tildes at the end; see WP:TILDE). CodeTalker (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! And also, thank you for explaining the citation requirements. I will see if that company has any online citations about their product that are not funneling to any sales process. I can also list other examples of pool automation companies that don't have any sales funnels to ensure multiple sources are cited. I will try to do an edit again in a few days. I will let you know when done, so you can review the edit. Hopefully, I get it right this time. I definitely want to figure this out because there are a lot of terrible articles on wiki with lots of jumbled information. :) Talk soon...

Ok, just revised the edit. I found a press release without sales funnel and also found another news article about smart tech. Check whenever you have time to confirm its good to go or if I need to make any changes. Thank you!

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi CodeTalker, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

For some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Why are you removing the revisions to the page on Todd Kashdan? The allegations are still being reviewed in court. I attached the URL for the ongoing federal court case. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for allegations and accusations to appear. Until they are shown as factual, the information should be treated as allegations. The court will decide on whether the charges hold up or are slander and defamation.

@Gmupsychologist1: Wikipedia summarizes what is reported in reliable sources, so that the information can be verified by readers. The information that is currently in the article is supported by references to two reliable sources. The text you replaced it with makes several strong claims but has absolutely no references, so it cannot stand. If you want to include something like this, you must find reports in reliable sources that make these claims, and provide references to those sources. I don't know what you mean when you say that you "attached the URL for the ongoing federal court case"; you did not provide any such thing, but in any case such a document would not be a primary source and not an appropriate source for the text that you added. CodeTalker (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring[edit]

Hi there, you reverted deletion of content that was added by/on behalf of a politician who has been harassing a female colleague and trying to kill a bill she wrote with family law professors to clarify child abuse and intimate partner abuse laws. The content addition included false information, article listed as cite failed to verify, and it's only source is the politician himself. This is why it was deleted - it violates standards.

Hi Code talker,

I saw that you reverted an edit made to correct content that was confirmed to be added as BLP issue and vandalism to a female politician's website by her political opponent who has a history of white male supremacist disinformation. The only source for the content added by the anonymous IP was this male politician himself, it is unverified by witnesses to the event, and mischaracterized the news article cited as the source. It was edited to reflect to what was confirmed by multiple sources, including the male politician himself, and be inclusive of the female politician's account of the event, which was omitted. You reverted it to vandalism.

Given the long history of reports of women's histories being omitted, marginalized, deleted and biased with sexist editing on Wikipedia, as well it's use for disinformation and creating controversy in politics, I hope that you will be more careful in the future.

The vandalism by a political opponent that I'm referring to was made: 10 June 2021‎ and generated Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

Whitecatwearinghat Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what reliable sources have reported. The information you are trying to suppress has been reported in a reliable source (The Advocate) and our article accurately summarizes what they have reported, namely that Seabaugh made an accusation and that White apologized for her action. If you want to claim that neither of these events actually happened (and that therefore The Advocate completely fabricated their story), you must find another reliable source that makes this claim. You cannot just remove information from a reliable source because you don't like it. CodeTalker (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CodeTalker You're response completely ignores the violations of Wikipedia's bias, research and multiple sourcing standards, for LPB and public official pages, as well as evidence of libel / defamatory content added by a politician to his own page with simultaneous vandalism on his political opponent's page that I pointed out. Wikipedia's policy is that the content should be removed for the reasons I gave, which is exactly what I did. This is a political controversy, and there is a criminal investigation, which makes it even worse and prone to be libel.

Accusing me of removing something just because I didn't like it is insulting. I followed the Wikipedia policy very precisely. That you've been ganging up with another editor apparently to falsely cite infractions that I've not done -- toward blocking me from Wikipedia editing -- for pointing out male supremacist editing is more like gamergate, alt-right, poltical troll behavior than what's appropriate for Wikipedia editor. It's the same thing women and other under-represented groups have been reporting as problems with Wikipedia for a long time. Whitecatwearinghat (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere. If you feel you have a valid reason to remove this information, open a discussion on the article's talk page so that other editors can participate in the discussion. Please do not post on my talk page any further. CodeTalker (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on Wikipedia is long dead.[edit]

All of the edits I made (except the first) had an edit summary - all of the reverts said no summary was provided - clearly that's incorrect. Also I don't see anyone looking for consensus, just blind reversions based on so-called NPOV. As I said a number of times, leave the Fox and Trump bashing to their respective pages. This subject is a living person and some statements in the article are being couched as fact when in reality they're nothing more than third-party opinions linked to dubious sources. Vox and Daily Beast are *not* neutral, nor reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.190.28 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is merely your opinion. The reliability of sources on Wikipedia is determined by consensus. As I stated in my edit summary, both Vox and Daily Beast have been decided to be reliable sources and are listed as such on WP:RSP. One editor repeatedly stating the opposite carries no weight. If you continue your edit war against consensus, which is now far past WP:3RR, you are certainly going to be blocked from editing. CodeTalker (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

july 2021[edit]

I am making change to update the biography of Annie Weather wax I did include that in the summary so if you can please rever teh change to the ones I made . I dont undersatand what detailed summary you want if it says provide a brief summary and I did . Please kindly undo the revision you made

July 2021[edit]

Can you please rever to the orginal changes I made this was requested by Annie weather wax her self all information I entered was at her request . Please rever the changes you undid. This is ridiculous that I have to keep explaining myself

July 2021- Annie Weatherwax[edit]

Please refrecnec email communication granting me permission to edit the wikepediua page by the living persons

Hi Narcise, Thanks for following up. I so appreciate your help.

RE the wikipedia page.

Here is my complete bio: It’s in narrative form here. Can you add links and format for wikipedia? Also please get rid of this

if possible:  

She often writes about social justice[6] and the relationship between visual arts and writing.[7][8] She has been influenced by the work of Flannery O’Connor, Alice Neel, Lorrie Moore, Roy Litchenstein, and Andy Warhol.[4]


EARLY CAREER AS AN ARTIST

Artist and writer Annie Weatherwax spent her early career sculpting superheroes and cartoon characters. Included in her portfolio are characters from Nickelodeon, DC Comics, Children’s Television Workshop and Pixar.

WRITER As a writer her short stories have appeared in The Sun Magazine, The Southern Review, and elsewhere. Her debut novel, All We Had was a finalist the Massachusetts Book Award and is now a major motion picture from Tribeca films.

Awards & honors Winner of the Robert Olen Butler Prize for Fiction, her short story collection has been a finalist for The Doris Bakwin Award; The Hudson Prize; and the St. Lawrence Book Award. She has received fellowships from Yaddo, and Summer Literary Seminar in Montreal

Weatherwax has written extensively on the synergy between the mind and the eye, and the link between language and visual art including for Publishers Weekly, The New York Times, and for Ploughshares.  In 2017 she received the Hamilton Life Achievement Award. Given annually to individuals with dyslexia, past recipients include Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut Governor, Dr. Matthew Schneps, astrophysicist, the Smithsonian and Harvard University, and Pulitzer prize winning poet, Philip Schultz.  She recently returned from a fellowship at Yaddo . I've received fellowships from Yaddo, Summer Literary Festivals, and In 2010, 

She is currently working working in the capacity of "The Literary Cartoonist” combining text with kinetic typography, drawing and animation.


Hi @71.143.227.151:, welcome to Wikipedia. Since you are in direct contact with the subject of the Annie Weatherwax article, you have what Wikipedia calls a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Users of Wikipedia should not edit any article about people with whom they have an external relationship. You should therefore not edit the Annie Weatherwax article directly. Instead, you should first register an account, then disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Please read WP:COI for more information about this and about how to disclose your conflict of interest. Then rather than editing the article directly, you should suggest the changes that you want to make by making an EDIT REQUEST on the article's talk page. See WP:EDITREQ for information about edit requests and how to make them. I hope this helps. CodeTalker (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from IanDBeacon[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CodeTalker. You have new messages at IanDBeacon's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

IanDBeacon (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valpo[edit]

CodeTalker, Is valpo dropping 2 sports they have? PearZane (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Is the question related to this edit? CodeTalker (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Code, Don't you know valpo dropped their name crusaders, I had to remove it and its mascot name the crusader PearZane (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You stupidly use jacobin magazine to cite john Stuart mills beliefs[edit]

The assertions he was leaning toward socialism is completely incorrect, furthermore, you need to not cite socialist magazines if you want to make that point, and rathe quote him directly. i will continue to reedit it until you decide to change to acceptable sources

Judy Justice Edit Reversion[edit]

Sox Entertainment will not be producing Judy Justice. It is a production only of Amazon Studios and IMDBtv. The articles sourced were incorrect.

As I stated on your talk page, you merely need to provide a reliable source that supports this assertion. If you learned about this by reading it somewhere, provide a reference to where you read it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CodeTalker, our lovely friend has reemerged, only under a new IP address User talk:98.149.150.173. User:Cassiopeia reverted him, as shown here [1] for the same reason you and I did. The user came back and undid her revisions, here [2], then mine here [3]. Just letting you know if you want to keep your eye on that user. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JudgeJudyCourthouse25:, thanks for the heads up. The IP has made another edit, this time actually adding a source. However I'm a bit confused, because while the reference doesn't support the change they made, it also doesn't support the text that was previously in the article. Originally the article had company=Sox and distributor=Amazon. The IP changed the company to Amazon and left distributor as Amazon. However, as I read it, the reference says the distributor is Sox, contrary to both the original text and the IP's change. What is your take on this? CodeTalker (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coleoidea[edit]

If you would have checked talk:coleoidea, you would find why I explained the edit before I made the edit.

¿Do you really want to leave the insanity in the article? Yeah sure, a crazy article made it to a crackpot-journal, but so did the Sokal affair. Reference to the fever-dreams of cranks rightly hurts the credibility of WikiPedia.

Unless someone can justify on talk:coleoidea by September why we should humor the mentally ill, I shall delete it again. I hope that a fortnight is sufficient time to support this lunacy.

2601:643:C002:2830:10B6:F2D8:E2EF:D6B5 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Bethencourt[edit]

About my additions in the article about Jean de Bethencourt:

1. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Teguise-1

2.https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LR2Z-T6H/maciot-de-bethencourt-second-senior-of-the-canary-islands%2C-spain-1387-1456

3. https://geneacanaria.blogspot.com/2012/10/de-la-inexistente-primera-mujer-de.html?m=1

4. https://archivoteguise.es/hombre-ilustre/8/la-princesa-teguise

You can translate the references number 3 and 4, they’re in Spanish and are part of the work of recognized historians and genealogists. Unfortunately there isn’t enough references in English but you can contact them. They can provide you with the documents to establish the correct lineage of the surname Bethencourt. The article in Wikipedia isn’t good enough about the Bethencourt’s lineage. I think you have to prove the real relationship between Jean and Andre de Bettencourt, because there aren’t references or documents about hhis connection but Wikipedia have published it as truth, without sources to confirm it, while you have deleted my additions saying there is a lack of sources. User:85.49.198.11

Hi, @85.49.198.11: thanks for providing references for your changes. These references should be added to the article when you make the changes, rather than being sent to me personally, so that anyone who reads the article can see and verify the sources. See WP:V for our policy, and WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITE for how to add the references to the article. It's fine to use non-English sources if English sources cannot be found; see WP:NONENG. What's not ok is adding specific claims without providing any sources. Thanks again, and happy editing! CodeTalker (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 2021[edit]

Hi, your edit on Craniosacral Therapy appears to me to be highly biased and opinionated in its language. In which case this is not scientific, to simply cite references which are against something. There are studies for and against almost anything you care to argue about. However this is not simply about an act of mental masturbation on being factually correct - I have literally had life changing sessions of CranioSacral Therapy. So much so that I left my job as a senior Electronic Engineer to study and practice it - and now I have had many, many, many people say that I myself have made a huge difference to their lives through this modality - dealing with real world problems like childhood sexual abuse, chronic anxiety, depression etc. A CranioSacral practitioner trains their senses to sense 3 tidal waves of varying frequency. The fact that they are a field phenomena that we don't have instruments to measure yet does not negate their existence. Nor does the fact that one must train themselves and their senses rigorously to detect such fields. We cannot measure Love and yet few would deny its existence. I encourage you to think about the effect of your actions beyond some sense of being right - there could be someone at the end of their rope who really needs help & support, a type of support the allopathic domain isn't designed to give, and seeing your article may turn them away from reaching out for that help from someone who can connect to their system in a way that can be vastly beneficial, whether or not it is yet scientifically verifiable. And the only real contraindications are for someone with a recent stroke or intracranial bleed - in that regard to cite it as 'dangerous' is just plain misleading. Please be responsible with your actions and consider the real world consequences of such actions All the best Mjeddy (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mjeddy:. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic; see WP:RS and WP:V. For medical topics, our standards are even higher; see WP:MEDRS. This is specifically because there may be, as you say, serious real world consequences to someone choosing a treatment for a medical condition. These are fundamental principles by which we operate. Everything in Wikipedia must be a summary of what is said in a reliable source; nothing can be based on personal experiences or ideas of individual editors. The idea that "there are studies for and against almost anything" is contrary to our basic principles. In light of this, if you think that there are reasons based in Wikipedia policies to make changes to the article, your next step would be to open a discussion on the article's talk page. But be sure you have adequate reliable sources to support your position. If the gist of your argument is that we should ignore reliable sources and base what we say on one editor's personal experience, I'm afraid you are going to get very little support. There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can argue the merits of craniosacral therapy without sources, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Welcome, and I hope you are able to continue to edit here productively. CodeTalker (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for my uncustomary hostility. There are so many inaccuracies and misleading statements with this article that it drove me a little off the deep end there. Thank you for being so courteous in response to my beginner outburst:) I will endeavor to go about this in a more systematic manner and list where I believe there is misleading information in the talk page. Thanks again Mjeddy (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Man Festival.[edit]

Green Man festival. Founded by my sister Jo Bartlett and her my childhood friend Danny Hagan in 2003. Some strange person keeps editing this out.

Hi @Proftomasito:. A number of people have removed the content you are repeatedly adding, because it is not cited to a reliable source. Please read WP:RS for our policy -- you cannot add material based on your personal knowledge. It must be cited to a reliable source. Please find a source before you add this information again. If you persist in adding unsourced information you may be blocked from editing. CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my source: https://indiethroughthelookingglass.com/the-green-man-festival-2003/

And here https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/green-man/pages/history.shtml

@Proftomasito: the first site is a blog and therefore would not be considered a reliable source. Anyone can write anything on a blog. The BBC source is better but does not mention the names "Bartlett or "Hagan", so does not seem to support your claim. CodeTalker (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very petty. Anyone can check that by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Jo_and_Danny

here's another source: https://www.local.gov.uk/case-studies/green-man-festival-powys Calls Jo by her married name but she uses Bartlett - do I need to provide a marriage certificate?

My additions to this page, which were correctly referenced, have been removed. Is there anything you can do to stop this happening?

Chase Stokes[edit]

The change to the infobox "Partner(s): Madelyn Cline (since 2020)" was solely based on content already in the article under the Personal life header, which reads "He [Chase Stokes] is currently in a relationship with his Outer Banks co-star Madelyn Cline, which he made public via an Instagram post uploaded on June 14, 2020.". The sources are an Instagram post made directly by Chase Stokes, and a recent follow-up article by E!. Since the information is true and already sourced in the page, instead of removing the bit in the infobox repeating the same information, it would be more productive to just attach a ref on the bit in the infobox. This isn't a case of hearsay or unreliable information, just an unsourced infobox mention of something already sourced in the body of the article. 69.180.211.147 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why Mythical[edit]

Hey , Help me to find why you retrieved mythical word with King Vikramaditya. Can you provide legitimate source for mythicalty or just retrieved because someone said this without any proper investigation and indulgence in history. Prove your facts otherwise don't retrieve back without any proper information. ShivraiSaini (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Stop reverting the Sanjay Kak edits. They are epic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.232.88 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ashlee Marie Preston. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. deity 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tung Chung Caribbean Coast[edit]

The Caribbean Coast residential estate is visible in front in that photo - you can search pictures! 219.78.13.118 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Amoeba Culture[edit]

Heo Sunghyun has changed his artist name Rose de Penny to Huh!. I am not vandalizing the site but correcting false and outdated information. Rose de Penny as an artist does not exist anymore, he goes by Huh!. S999K (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

I got the age of Terry McGovern from Google. I just typed in his name and his age is one of the first things you see. So please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.153.250 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@69.221.153.250: Hi! Information you add to Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. A google search result is not a reliable source. See WP:GOOGLE for what a search engine result can and cannot be used for -- it says that a search engine result cannot guarantee the results are reliable or "true". CodeTalker (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perl[edit]

Read the sentence! It does not make grammaticl sense. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I think you are misreading that sentence. It previously said Perl is procedural in nature, ..., which is perfectly correct. You changed it to Perl and is procedural in nature, ..., which does not make sense. Perhaps you are not noticing that the previous sentence ends with the name "C"? CodeTalker (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zwayer page[edit]

Hi there just wanted to let you know everything that was edited has reliable sources if you search it up regarding the comments Jude Bellingham made about the referee

@81.98.121.82: I don't doubt it. But please read WP:V and WP:RS. If there are sources, you must add a reference to those sources when you add the information to the article. It is not the responsibility of everyone who reads the article to go search for sources themselves. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi CodeTalker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12/19/2021 ==[edit]

I posted and took half of my day literally with correct proper citation and sources as wikipedia mentioned.

you erased everything I wrote including from books, I give you three days to correct this because it was in proper citation everything I wrote with direct and very extremely authoritative sources from books including catholic websites where for example I mentioned that transubstantiations is a catholic term.

if this issue does not get resolved I will post in youtube and other websites internationally so that catholic along with eastern orthodox communities worldwide we will defund your website and will list it as misinformation list and then it will be banned in different governments. I do have that sort of ability.

you choose.....

I provided everything sources it took a half day. you want me to play the hard way we will do it and when your website gets completely defunded and shut down and then another organization will buy it. and then you will be frustrated. you choose correct it or else i will go public and post it not only in youtube because we know youtube also takes down websites but other international websites as well.

you have three days to correct it i am not giving more chances i worked very very hard and even followed the proper form of citation but because you did not liked the content and you hate the catholic church you decided to remove everything including the proper citation i will find a way to get it to the highest member in wikipedia at whatever expense. if you do not the issue i will post those videos with proof and i ma not bluffing i have screenshots i suspected this would happen

you told me to place the citation of the source correctly I complied and did not complain at first because i knew i was wrong and then i did followed every single instruction as wikipedia required it and then you still decided to reverse the changes to misconstrue and also to make the catholic church look wrong and even you willfully provided misinformation.

if you'd like we can make it ban this website in England, Poland, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Mexico and many other nations i will speak all the languages necessary to defund wikipedia with the truth and proof you choose...

I took screen shots in case I get banned and will provide it in youtube among other websites as well.

i will escalate this matter to info-en@wikimedia.org if you do not fix it in three days

I already submitted the email and send a message also to administrator so they can further review the matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.163.254 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@68.104.163.254: You are talking to the wrong person. I did not revert your changes. If you look at the page history here you will see that User:Sundayclose made that change. At this point you should open a discussion of your changes on the article talk page here: Talk:Priesthood in the Catholic Church. You need to provide reliable sources that support your changes. Bluster and threats are not going to help your case at all. CodeTalker (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conestoga Language[edit]

Greetings may it be well with you.

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I am indeed new to editing in Wikipedia, so I am bound to make some errors.

May it be well with you.

Scott Scott Conestoga (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings may it be well with you.

I just included references for my edit to Conestoga Language. I hope this works well enough.

May it be well with you.

Scott Scott Conestoga (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motley Fool edit[edit]

Change it back you useless mod, it's the truth and people need to see it 167.179.147.41 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@167.179.147.41: Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic. If you can find reliable sources that support your changes, you can add them. You must use neutral language, not the emotional tone in which you originally wrote. You may also want to review WP:TRUTH, WP:VNT and WP:RGW. Also, there are no "mods" on Wikipedia. There are administrators, but I am not one. I'm just an editor like you, although I've been editing here since 2007 so I do have some understanding of Wikipedia's policies. CodeTalker (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Holkins[edit]

I see you removed unsourced information on Jerry Holkins. I get that you are technically right to do that, but the information changed was accurate. I'm not sure what to do from here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scorpions13256: The thing to do is provide a reliable source for the information you want to change. You mentioned in the edit comment that this was announced on twitter. If the twitter account definitely belongs to the subject, then you can cite it to reference information about the subject, per WP:TWITTER. (Note that the twitter account would need to belong to the person who changed their name, not a parent or other relative.) It would be better however to cite a secondary source, if and when the information appears in another source. CodeTalker (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I will not revert your edit. I just feel uneasy about keeping the deadname in the article. Unfortunately, no reliable sourcing seems to exist. I think I'll just remove the name from the article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256: Removing the names of both children would probably be the correct thing to do. Per WP:BLPNAME, we should respect the privacy of family members who are not notable themselves. Ah, I see now that Aplucas0703 has re-added the information with a cite to the tweet. I don't think naming the children conforms to WP:BLPNAME nor that citing the parent's tweet conforms to WP:TWITTER which says that the tweet must not involve claims about a third party, but I'm not going to revert it any further. CodeTalker (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that deleting the names and changing "daughters" to "children" would probably be the appropriate thing to do. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Incinvible[edit]

I am fully aware that wikipedia does not have a no spoiler rule. That is obvious. Through a description of a character, you describe their backstory and personality. Not everything that happens to them in the series, including their demise. In the synopsis of an episode, you don't explain the entire ending, you give a one or two sentence quickly explaining the plot of the episode. The explanation of the killings of the original Guardians of the Globe is justified, as that is a motivated plot point for the entirety of season 1. It is not for a very minor character, or anything that does not push the plot. It is an unnecessary addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.76.39.59 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organic compounds[edit]

@CodeTalker: There are millions of notable compounds having naturally occurring elements besides Carbon and Hydrogen, hence the viewpoint mentioned in this article is a little inaccurate. Examples of organic compounds containing diverse elements are Penicillin, Phenothiazine, Sulphonamide, Thiazide, Glutathione, Cyanocobalamin, etc. The list is practically infinite. It would be appreciated if the scope of the article is broadened CrafterNova (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CrafterNova:. Yes, of course an organic molecule can contain other atoms besides carbon and hydrogen, and the vast majority of them do contain other atoms. But your wording made it sound like all organic compounds contain nitrogen and oxygen, thus excluding methane, ethane, etc. Also the "naturally occurring" phrase is problematic, since there are organic compounds containing technetium which doesn't really occur naturally. Perhaps it could say "Chemical compound with carbon-hydrogen bonds and possibly other atoms" but that seems a bit awkward and unnecessary, since the fact that other atoms are permitted seems implicit in the current wording. CodeTalker (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: There must be a way to make the wording consistent with current definition of organic compounds. Also, a common feature is that organic compounds usually contain covalent bonding and/or coordinate bonding. From Technetium, "Technetium occurs naturally in the Earth's crust in minute concentrations of about 0.003 parts per trillion."CrafterNova (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love (1927)[edit]

Hi, so I was wondering what was wrong with the edit I did on the box office for the film Love with Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, please let me know, also what "extremist" views do I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahyanmovielover (talkcontribs) 18:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahyanmovielover, your source was an amateur Garbo fan page run by people who use only their first names. That is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thank you for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahyanmovielover (talkcontribs) 18:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahyanmovielover: see WP:SPS for more information about using self-published sources like blogs. CodeTalker (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austin, PA[edit]

I saw you removed my update. The irrelevant information I removed is part of an online harassment of one person against another. It is irrelevant to the article and is personal in nature. Although the bad actor is citing articles, the actual truth is much more complicated than what is being written, and Wikipedia is not the place to air dirty laundry. 6FtandBalding (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@6FtandBalding: Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources report. If you have other reliable sources that report a different view of the situation, you may cite them. CodeTalker (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary as the entire situation is irrelevant to the wikipage. The wikipage is simply being used to harass an individual. 6FtandBalding (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content is a neutral-point-of-view summary of reliable sources, and information about the mayor of a town is definitely relevant to the town. Wikipedia just describes what is in reliable sources. MarshallKe (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@6FtandBalding: I agree with MarshallKe that the information about the mayor is relevant to the article about the town. If you disagree, you should not remove the information again, as at this point you are edit warring and are at risk of being blocked for this behavior. Instead you should open a discussion on the article talk page and present your rationale for excluding this sourced information. CodeTalker (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incheon Yi Clan Page[edit]

Sorry for not giving an explanation. Now I edited that with proper explanation. Thanks for reminding me. 2409:4072:587:1DDD:0:0:D9A:F0B1 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be Like Mike Lesa Werme[edit]

Hello, I feel it is necessary to correct the record.

First Lesa Werme was the creative art director on the Be Like Mike campaign which enabled her to be granted several promotions which were duly noted. Understanding that the general public may not have knowledge of that important role in the Be Like Mike campaign. Werme was creative art director for all the content and conceptual aspects of the Be Like Mike campaigns Specifically, unlike the other people noted in the information highlighting the children of the creators and Quaker Oats Co. that were paid handsomely to appear in the commercial. Lesa Werme as the creative art director was sitting next to, engaging and directing Michael Jordan during most of the scenes depicted in the infamous commercial but was not highlighted visually other than in private press releases since it would be unethical to appear in a commercial for profit despite having been the person who was the creative art director who was also sitting next to Bernie Pitzel in the restaurant when he heard Lesa Werme declare after Pitzel was struggling with the Disney song lyric “ I want to be like you”. It was Werme who not only created the graphic that appears at the end of the infamous commercial “Be Like Mike. Drink Gatorade”. But it was Werme who suggested to Pitzel in that restaurant Pitzel regularly met with Werme on other projects they worked on, the idea is to “BE LIKE MIKE” not to “BE LIKE YOU” as the Disney lyric generically said.

Real content such as this is rarely exposed when only half of the facts are expressed.

It matters little to Werme if WIKI wants the whole story. But if WIKI does seek the truth then there is no truth like the one that comes straight from the horse’s mouth as they say.

If you are inclined to see photos of proof. That can be provided

Sincerely, Happymonkeyface Happymonkeyface (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Happymonkeyface:! Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published. Please take a look at WP:V and WP:RS. You've made a lot of claims in the paragraph above. My question is, how do you know all this? If you have read it in a published source somewhere, then all you need to do is provide a reference to that source (see WP:REFBEGIN for information on how to do that). If, on the other hand, you merely know this from personal experience or private communication with people who know it from personal experience, and there are no published sources that report it, then I'm afraid that it cannot be added. Unpublished photos would also not be acceptable. Your statement about the "horse's mouth" seems plausible in everyday life, but it is antithetical to the principles by which Wikipedia operates. In most cases we do not use primary sources such as photos and first-hand reports from participants and witnesses, but prefer secondary sources, in which primary sources have been evaluated and reported on. You may also want to read WP:VNT. I hope that you are able to find reliable secondary sources for the change you want to make, but if you cannot find them, then this information cannot be added, even if it is true. Thanks for communicating! CodeTalker (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your reply. The reason I can make these claims, and because it appears that I am communicating with a real person, is that Happymonkeyface is Lesa Werme. The claims made are made by the person who wrote them and was the person who created the Be Like Mike campaign. As it appears, despite the sources, Bernie Pitzel is the individual behind the Be Like Mike campaign. And while I have great respect for Bernie, it simply is not true that the creative genius lies in one person. The facts are that when campaigns are created there are TWO sometime THREE parties. A writer, an art director and (which was not the case with Be Like Mike) a creative director.

I appreciate your commitment to integrity and I am grateful for the factual deep diving you apply to your efforts.

I simply felt that there is an imbalance in this particular WIKI on Be Like Mike including perhaps most disingenuously that Bernie Pitzel was the creative genius behind the advertising that featured perhaps the Greatest Of All Time, Michael Jordan who not only held my first child but gifted him a signed basketball when I attended a BARRONS baseball game pregnant in Birmingham just before my son was born. Once again, I am grateful for your dedication to facts and I appreciate your willingness to engage in the process of true authentic research despite what sources you find on the internet which also may only project a story half true. Happymonkeyface (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Happymonkeyface: Thanks for the information. Once again, the fact that you know this information to be true is unfortunately insufficient to justify its addition to Wikipedia. You must find a reliable source that has published the information. Furthermore, since you are the person involved, by Wikipedia's definition you have conflict of interest with this article. Wikipedia users are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their associates (see WP:COI for more information). If and when you do find a reliable source supporting your change, you should NOT edit the article yourself, but should submit an edit request on the article talk page, and allow an uninvolved editor to evaluate the source and make the change. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Code Talker, Thank you for your reply. Your information is helpful. Of course I would not have understood the details you provided had we not had to go through a lengthy conversation. I do understand the importance of correct information and I respect your guideline's despite that the ease of editing does not make it easy to understand the details involved. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Maybe the details you shared in this thread could be more clear on the editing tab and be detailed before editing is permitted by the user. Just a thought. Thanks again Happymonkeyface (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mali Surmame[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mali Surmame requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jogi (caste)[edit]

Apologies for my reverting you at Jogi (caste) - I was trying to revert the change that you had already reverted - apologies again - Arjayay (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: No problem! Thanks for the message. CodeTalker (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Level 2 warning[edit]

You're a loser who has spent the last 15 years of his life editing wikipedia. RDein (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RDein: Please avoid personal attacks against other editors. Repeating this behavior is likely to result in your being blocked from editing. Regarding your edit to Lake Park High School, you are welcome to add this information provided you include a reference to a reliable source which has published the information. CodeTalker (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian[edit]

I not understand your action. How do you do ? Explications please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.45.55.1 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@129.45.55.1: Your edits on Meridian were written in non-grammatical English and were very confusing and difficult to understand. I still don't know what you meant by strange phrases like "spherical projection", "circle point", "spherical radius are confounded", etc. It is obvious that English is not your native language; perhaps it would better for you to edit the Wikipidia in your native language. Also, User:Drmies removed your last message (which was also very difficult to understand) from my talk page and left you a message on your talk page here. You should read what Drmies wrote to you. CodeTalker (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your efforts in counter-vandalism work. Keep it going! Volten001 23:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Man (song)[edit]

Please bear with me here. I only changed one date on article but my most recent edit preserves all the dates in D/M/Y format. FinngrPrintz (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re your Teahouse comment[edit]

<insert shocked comment about not following the world's greatest sport here>

In all seriousness, I didn't know about WP:CK – that's a good link, thanks. I'll have to remember that one! Perfect4th (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there![edit]

I added details, information, and edits to this article on Long Beach timeline, but you reverted my edit. I did rephrasing on sentences and I added details with reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with my edit. Can you explain this revert? Thank you. --76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were several issues with your edit. The wording was overly promotional, using terms like "with style" in Wikipedia's voice. It had a first-person reference "our town" which is entirely inappropriate. But the biggest issue is the text was ungrammatical English and was pretty much incomprehensible. CodeTalker (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added links to this source I added. The wording in this edit looks normal to me. How do you think "with style" is promotional? And how is the English I edited, ungrammatical and incomprehensible? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you reverted my edit on this here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1089496130&oldid=1089154583&title=Timeline_of_San_Diego
I added this to show recent information and new details. Can you also explain this? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]