User talk:Swatjester
Φ
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Predator Sparrow
[edit]Hi, I noticed you dealt with User:PredatorSparrow previously but it seems they have reverted back to doing weird subtle vandalism.
Edit on Christopher A. Wray to incorrectly change their DOB and profession from attorney to law enforcement officer.
Edit on Anonymous (hacker group) that makes sentences grammatically incorrect and inserting random comma.
Edit on Hector Monsegur to make the lead grammatically incorrect, removing a source and equating informant to undercover agent.
I don't see the purpose to this weird vandalism but that is what they are doing. D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't fully understand what their deal is. I just reverted them mis-moving an article into Project space as well. If you catch the errors, please revert them and give warnings as normal; I'll continue to keep an eye on them and see what I can do from the admin side. Thanks for the heads up. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I was just trying to make the article look nice and add more information. I guess I will just stick with cybersecurity topics. PredatorSparrow (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't explain the edits you made whatsoever D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I was just trying to make the article look nice and add more information. I guess I will just stick with cybersecurity topics. PredatorSparrow (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't fully understand what their deal is. I just reverted them mis-moving an article into Project space as well. If you catch the errors, please revert them and give warnings as normal; I'll continue to keep an eye on them and see what I can do from the admin side. Thanks for the heads up. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Reinsertion of unsourced stuff
[edit]Hello. A few months ago, I deleted some content from fried egg because they were unsourced. Some time after that, an IP readded the unsourced content, but thankfully you reverted it. We all know the importance of sourcing edits.
Anyway, I must say that some user and an IP have reverted a lot of my edits which involve removing unsourced stuff (some of which are several years old). I don't think what they did is justified. What's your take? Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'd have to see specific diffs, but generally speaking if the content remains unsourced, and an IP or editor is edit warring to keep the unsourced content, they should be reported at an appropriate noticeboard. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the IP and editor have done a lot. Here are some examples:
- French horn
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_horn&diff=prev&oldid=1292873929
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_horn&diff=next&oldid=1292906741
- Emile Berliner
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emile_Berliner&diff=prev&oldid=1292872446
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emile_Berliner&diff=prev&oldid=1292910073
- Roquefort
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roquefort&diff=prev&oldid=1292871383
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roquefort&diff=next&oldid=1292907738
- Asiago cheese
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asiago_cheese&diff=prev&oldid=1292876973
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asiago_cheese&diff=next&oldid=1292906802
- Pointed hat
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pointed_hat&diff=prev&oldid=1292870715
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pointed_hat&diff=next&oldid=1292907496
- SMS
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMS&diff=prev&oldid=1292911597
- Dorsey Burnette
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorsey_Burnette&diff=prev&oldid=1292911146
- Johnny Burnette
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnny_Burnette&diff=prev&oldid=1292911192
- Raclette
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raclette&diff=prev&oldid=1292870960
- Fromage blanc
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fromage_blanc&diff=prev&oldid=1275160624
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fromage_blanc&diff=prev&oldid=1292870092
- Contrabassoon
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contrabassoon&diff=prev&oldid=1292911130
- Char siu
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Char_siu&diff=prev&oldid=1292874700
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Char_siu&diff=prev&oldid=1292910147
- Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should note Simonm223's comment on Remsense's talk page discussion relating to this -- just because policy supports that unsourced material can be removed if challenged, doesn't necessarily mean that it *should* be removed. Additionally it's one thing to see an unsourced statement or a dated citation needed tag on an individual article, and say "Hey, OK, I'm going to fix this by removing the unsourced claim." It's another thing entirely to be doing this en masse across multiple articles, as it seems like you're being accused of doing. In the former case, an editor who disagrees can reinsert the content, and it prompts a discussion via WP:BRD about the reasons. But in the latter case, it requires significantly more effort to have this discussion across multiple articles, particularly if there's no indication that the reasons for doing so are specific enough to merit a discussion with any editor who disagrees. For instance, just looking at your edit to French horn -- as a former concert hornist myself before an accident ended that dream, I have some familiarity with that subject matter and I don't see anything glaringly inaccurate in the information you removed. Kruspe horns *are* the standard in the US, the Conn 8D is extremely popular (I had one at one point before trading into a Holton Farkas), and a lot of the other claims could probably easily be cited. In fact, I think I said as much on Fried egg last August. Similarly large parts of what you removed from Raclette could be sourceable here had you taken the effort to shape your removals more carefully. I'd suggest that regardless of whether you're in the right or not as far as policy, getting taken to AN/I over being perceived as disruptive is probably not what you want to have happen. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Again, "citation needed" means "a citation is needed", not "this is potentially dubious". If that is the core of @Nyam Nyam Tiger's hangup, then I hope they can be convinced that this is the case. Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should note Simonm223's comment on Remsense's talk page discussion relating to this -- just because policy supports that unsourced material can be removed if challenged, doesn't necessarily mean that it *should* be removed. Additionally it's one thing to see an unsourced statement or a dated citation needed tag on an individual article, and say "Hey, OK, I'm going to fix this by removing the unsourced claim." It's another thing entirely to be doing this en masse across multiple articles, as it seems like you're being accused of doing. In the former case, an editor who disagrees can reinsert the content, and it prompts a discussion via WP:BRD about the reasons. But in the latter case, it requires significantly more effort to have this discussion across multiple articles, particularly if there's no indication that the reasons for doing so are specific enough to merit a discussion with any editor who disagrees. For instance, just looking at your edit to French horn -- as a former concert hornist myself before an accident ended that dream, I have some familiarity with that subject matter and I don't see anything glaringly inaccurate in the information you removed. Kruspe horns *are* the standard in the US, the Conn 8D is extremely popular (I had one at one point before trading into a Holton Farkas), and a lot of the other claims could probably easily be cited. In fact, I think I said as much on Fried egg last August. Similarly large parts of what you removed from Raclette could be sourceable here had you taken the effort to shape your removals more carefully. I'd suggest that regardless of whether you're in the right or not as far as policy, getting taken to AN/I over being perceived as disruptive is probably not what you want to have happen. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
M249
[edit]not removed but replaced. removed the accidental typos (ee) 103.105.214.6 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Larry Thorne
[edit]When Larry swam ashore in Alabama he did not have any documents. Later his presence in the US was supported by the Finn community in New York. It took a specific Act of Congress to legalize him here. So until the act was signed his undocumented status was certainly defining. Now as a WP category, we haven't seen it in the past. For decades the "tired, poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse, homeless tempest-tossed" simply made their way to America IOT "breathe free". Today this isn't so, and such people are classified as "undocumented". Accordingly, his status ought to be recognized in Wikipedia's categorization scheme. I'm thinking recognition for Larry is (hopefully} just the beginning. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what a defining category is.
A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
Larry's temporary status for a short period of time as an illegal immigrant is not defining.As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for.
Jumping ship is not what he is best known for. And sources do not refer to him as "Larry Thorne, undocumented immigrant". Nor is it significant enough to have merited inclusion in the article lede (nor should it have); andif the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining.
And it is not our responsibility nor our role to be trying to give him recognition. That's not what Wikipedia does. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)- Alright, I accept him as a Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. But of the 1,700 people in category, how many were in the US illegally? (Right now this is a "might investigate" on my WikiGnome to-do list.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah there's definitely a ton of overcategorization cleanup to do. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, I accept him as a Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. But of the 1,700 people in category, how many were in the US illegally? (Right now this is a "might investigate" on my WikiGnome to-do list.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)