User talk:City of Silver/Archive 9

User:Efc1878

Hi there. This user needs to be reported for edit warring after being blocked a few days ago for breaking the three-revert rule. You had reported this user and he was blocked but has now just carried on with the edit warring if you look at his recent contributions. I'm afk for 5 or 6 hours so would you mind reporting him again please?

Cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mórtas is Dóchas

Hi administrator he is lying. I was temporarily banned for 24 hours not few days as he claimed, because he kept reverting my editing starting from two days ago and I corrected them back. He went on and on and won't let go. This involved a few pages of the Everton players. Kindly check out my past history of editing I was not a troublemaker and had updated the pages of Everton players for a long period. His multi or his friends made complaints to my amendment. In fact, they can revert my editing as much as they want because they have various IP address or accounts (each x 3 times a day). And no it was this user who started all these argument. He reverted my editing with the timestamps he likes time after time. He has an agenda obviously. I would like to report Mórtas is Dóchas, you may check out his movement in his editing history for the last 2 days. Thank you for your consideration.

P.S Mods, kindly check out the timestamps section of this page underneath, that's where the argument coming from. Please note that I was the first editor to edit all these pages (international apps in this case) right after the international week. This user Mórtas is Dóchas kept reverting my editing regarding the timestamps to suit his own agenda. This has been ongoing for 2 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Timestamps

Cheers. Efc1878 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Efc1878: Okay.

1. I'm not an administrator.

2. This

"because he kept reverting my editing starting from two days ago and I corrected them back. He went on and on and won't let go"

is you admitting you repeatedly violated the edit warring policy. I was not impressed with User:Mórtas is Dóchas's behavior but if they're not blatantly vandalizing, and they weren't, you can't go back and forth forever. You were blocked because of your behavior, not because an administrator incorrectly thought that you were wrong and he was right.

3. This

"In fact, they can revert my editing as much as they want because they have various IP address or accounts (each x 3 times a day)"

is not true. If a page comes under attack by anonymous editors, you're supposed to go to WP:RFPP and ask an admin to protect it.

4. This

"He has an agenda obviously"

is never, ever a helpful approach. Don't say things like this. Concentrate on things you think Mórtas is doing wrong, not what you think is in their mind.

There are two people involved in this mess. Either of you could have ended it at any time. If you had just stopped the childish fighting and followed the rules, Mórtas would have cooperated or gotten blocked. If Mórtas won't discuss, report their behavior to either the vandalism noticeboard or the edit warring noticeboard. If Mórtas reverts while discussing, report their behavior at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. I could be wrong but it looks like you were right on the timestamp issue and Mórtas was wrong. And you're obviously upset because your approach isn't working. That's really, really frustrating because I'm just thinking that if you'd just stopped fighting and asked the administrators to settle it, you'd have gotten your way. CityOfSilver 14:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chuck Howley's Pro Bowls

Pro Bowl seasons in an infobox are always piped to the previous year, e.g. [[1968 Pro Bowl|1967]], since the corresponding Pro Bowl for each season takes place during January of the next year. This standard is in the documentation on Template:Infobox NFL biography. Looking at Pro-Football-Reference.com, Howley's Pro Bowl seasons were 1965–1969, 1971. So that's what should be displayed in his infobox. Lizard (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Per WP:IAR, I'm good to disregard the template, the football project, the pipes, consensus, and everything else because I've explained why I'm doing what I'm doing. It's really silly that I have to clearly state that I'm breaking the rules because I'm doing so to remove errors. Because no, I strongly dispute that the 1966 Pro Bowl should be labeled "1965" since it honors players' performances from that season. The label on the Pro Bowl for the 1965 season is "1966" because that's when it was played. This appears to be the case for every single game. The NFL has always done this.

You said, "Howley's Pro Bowl seasons were 1965–1969, 1971." Correct. But! Look closely at what you said there, then look at the relevant part of his article. What you said here is not what that infobox says. You're describing Howley's accomplishments with a word the infobox doesn't have. This might be leading to an RfC where we change that parameter but I assure you, it's not leading to me accepting that the Pro Bowl played on January 16, 1966 can accurately be labeled with "1965." Because if you're right, shouldn't 1966 Pro Bowl be called 1965 Pro Bowl? CityOfSilver 02:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you pinged me if someone already explained this to you? If you disagree with this practice then take it to WT:NFL and try to change it. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard and Sabbatino: It's because I was so busy banging out a reply that I didn't pay attention to who I was talking to. I apologize and am pinging accordingly. CityOfSilver 14:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps a discussion at WT:NFL is warranted, although this has been the standard for many years. I'm not sure there's an easy fix. Lizard (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The BC / BCE thing

Most academics, or (in my case) retired academics, prefer BCE. I suspect that, like me, they are mindful of the controversy concerning Christ's birth year. A number of scholars believe the Christ was born 3 or 4 years before what we traditionally called 1 AD, meaning that the terms "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" aren't quite accurate. The terms "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era" get around this possible imprecision.

As for consistency within the Homer article, before the anon edited it, there was one "B.C." (with periods) and the rest were all "BCE"'s. He went through and changed everything to "BC". When I undid that, I also changed the one "B.C." to a "BCE". So both versions were internally consistent.

Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPedant: MOS:ERA says

• "BC and AD are the traditional ways of designating eras. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas. Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles."

To me, "are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas" doesn't need to be there unless it's saying that BCE and CE are a bit more obscure and less mainstream so they're less preferred. But if that's a fair interpretation, it's me trying to adhere to the MOS's weak, noncommittal language. You're a retired academic and you think it should say BCE? Good enough for me. Let's have Homer's article say BCE. (At least until TWO retired academics show up and change everything back to BC. That'll be a bloodbath.)

My issue with you was solely about your explanation, which I still feel was lacking. That user replaced BC with BCE and explained it with, basically, "I did this for consistency." Your edit summary should have been something like, "Okay, but you didn't actually make this consistent and it's not in line with sourcing" or something. You were just kind of dismissive, and I thought they were owed a more clear summary than that. Unless they're up to something. Do you know what, if anything, Doug Weller was implying? CityOfSilver 04:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, CityOfSilver, I couldn't see what DW was getting at either. The anon didn't seem to be violating anything in the MOS -- To the contrary, he too was applying an accepted consistent style to the article. The disagreement is more about taste than anything else. Anyhow, it's not worth much more thought. Time to go back to mainspace. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Juan Mata

It took me over an hour to get my facts right on Juan Mata's 2016-17 season by doing the right research and made sure I checked every single statistic. Just check Lionel Messi's Wikipedia page (specifically the 2016 season) and you can see a game-by-game recap. I made a mistake with my neutrality (which is quite understandable since I'm new to editing), which I fully admit. If you let me write the article in a neutral-point-of-view, will you still delete it? Metanoia09 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metanoia09: First, please note that I didn't call your edit inaccurate. It was clearly not. My concern here is with a guideline, WP:OSE, regarding cross-article precedent. I agree that Messi's article contains reams of play-by-play prose. I believe it badly harms his article because you'd never read stuff like that were you to look him up in, say, World Book or the Encyclopedia Britannica. Because one article (and Messi isn't even the biggest problem) contains non-encylopedic play-by-play prose doesn't mean every other article can have the same issue. CityOfSilver 22:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joanna Gunadi

• "There's an awful lot to learn about making reports like these! Consequently, I give up and will never try again"

Maybe so but you did a good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you! I figured my sock report would have corrections stacked on top of corrections so it didn't bug me that much. So I'll be back, clogging up edit histories in no time. CityOfSilver 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please justify how Jesus did not die in 34 AD on this date

Hi CityOfSilver.

To my knowledge of the Bible and of History, plus doing a good amount of research. Jesus would have died in the year 34 AD (when Jesus was 33), on April 23. He was born in 1 AD on December 25. All of this aligns with tradition and Biblical references; such as, John the Baptist having baptized Jesus in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar's reign (14-37 AD, making the 15 year marker 29-30 AD). 3 years after this point would be 33 or 34, but 34 correlates to Jesus' age and the Passover Calendar ([1]). If you have questions or want to refute valuable information, please feel free to delete this again when I post it later.

You can email me back @ Michael_A_Joiner@aol.com

@MichaelAaronJoiner23: Okay.

1. Those dates-of-the-year pages all have very high standards for inclusion because, as you can see on 365 of 366 of them, they're just these lists that are so enormous they're practically useless for someone doing research or just casually reading stuff. Edits to them by new and/or unregistered users are flagged for review, and if a reviewing editor can come up with any decent reason not to accept a new addition, it'll probably be gone. I know this sounds harsh but I bet I delete 90% of new listings because of this. In this case, my reasoning was because, per our article on the man himself, it isn't completely verified that Jesus actually existed. If we don't know for an undisputed fact that Jesus was an actual person, we can't add him as a historical figure.
2. Your referring to Jesus as "the Son of God" is not in line with our policy on neutrality. That terminology would not be accurate to a reader who is Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist, etc.
3. Even if we confirmed he was a real person, your edit still runs a bit on the wrong side of our policy regarding original research, which says that if you go out and do the research yourself, you can't get your findings published by Wikipedia. We need reliable sources independent of Wikipedia. Specifically, the original research policy has a subsection forbidding what's called "synthesis," which is where you combine information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that no source says. (Here's a weird example but stay with me: I could take one reliable source that says Jesus died in Judea on April 23, 34. I could take another reliable source saying there was an earthquake in Judea on April 23, 34. And I could then combine those two chunks of facts to conclude that the earthquake killed Jesus. See why combining known facts to reach an unknown conclusion can be a problem? According to Matthew 27:51-52, the earthquake in question didn't happen until Jesus was already dead.) I need a reliable source that definitely says that Jesus died on April 23, 34. Combining sources and doing the math is synthesis and that's just not enough.

That said, I apologize for throwing a lot of policy at you. You're a new editor and I wish I had any ability to explain this in a way that doesn't come off like I'm a teacher assigning a bunch of reading for homework. If you edit my talk page further, I'll get a notification so if you have any more questions, fire away. (And don't worry about asking dumb questions since if Wikipedia sanctioned stupid people, I'd have gotten banned like a hundred times by now.) For that matter, you must have seen my dismissive edit summary at April 23. I'm sorry for that too. I had no indication you meant to do the project harm so that was entirely out of line. CityOfSilver 03:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Rico

Hello from Portugal,

yes, summary not correct on my part i admit it, but yours was as wrong as can be, i did not remove the ESPN chart, the other user removed the SOCCERWAY one OK? My edit managed to get them both to source the statistics chart, SOCCERWAY.com is as reliable as it gets for us football editors and the other guy removed without one word of explanation, not I.

I have reinstated my hard work (which also included box update, fixing redirects in storyline, etc), sorry for any inconvenience --85.242.133.151 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Famous football players' articles are extremely sensitive, and edit summaries like that on articles like those are as close as I get to automatically reverting without even considering the changes made. Use these summaries to explain why you're editing. (For example: "I changed the ESPN source to Soccerway because it's as reliable as it gets for us football editors" would've been perfect.) Because if you do, editors who revert you without explaining themselves are violating the rules. CityOfSilver 01:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and kind reply. Yes sir, could not agree more about your note, will definitely be more careful in the future, but it's easier said than done (and how!), I have zero tolerance for vandalism unfortunately (not saying this person's action was vandalism per se, just the removal coupled with the lack of any summary whatsoever). Peace! --85.242.133.151 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Kader Khan

Hello, I was just trying to add role name of Kader Khan in his filme 'Hogaya Dimaag ka Dahi' and you considered it as disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immeekk (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Immeekk: We had information about his appearance in that movie cited to Indian Express. You removed that sourcing and replaced it with an unsourced claim. You haven't explained any edits, including when you reverted me, with edit summaries. CityOfSilver 13:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Gravitas Recordings

My article was heavily trimmed, and labeled as promo. When I write I try to give as much information as possible from the sources I find. Much of the source material on any musician or artist is laden with promotional prose. I research and take the facts away from the piece and build an article based on those facts. If YOUR standard of trimming shown here is the standard we should edit by, then 85% of the music pages on wikipedia would need to be trimmed. I never once stated my opinion, I did my job as a neutral party to collect and refine the information I had on my subject with lots of internal links, and I felt like my subject had notability and a unique story that readers would appreciate.

After looking at the history, I see there was a user who appeared to violate COI who added some edits after i built the page... and it appears this prompted you to assume that the entire article was promo, and I think its unfair to me to have my work stripped because of another users violation.

I hope that we can find a happy medium on this issue.

Please discuss, Thanks. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kittycolada911: I had no indication anyone but User:Jessebrede was conflicted and I edited accordingly. If I had any reason to think you also had a conflict, I'd have said so in an edit summary. For that matter, one problem with edit summaries is that they don't provide enough room to actually explain edits like mine there, which was a bit more wide-ranging than I remembered. Upon review, my edit summary should have been more specific about what concerned me. It's a bit dismissive and unsubstantial and I apologize.

The most obvious issue with the text I removed is that it was sourced to interviews with Burcham and Brede. That's a red flag because of WP:PRIMARY. There's nothing wrong with the fact that these two people are probably motivated by efforts to promote themselves and their company. But since that's their motivation, they're not as reliable as someone with no stake at all.

Some of the prose I removed wasn't completely irrelevant but it also had me wondering why the article has it. "Brede was involved in the EDM scene in Austin as a DJ for many years before he organized the label with the goal of promoting other local artists." If you removed everything in this sentence that wasn't really relevant to the article, it would read "Brede organized the label with the goal of promoting other artists." (This article is not about Brede so the establishment of his EDM bonafides should be as small as possible. "Brede, a former DJ and EDM musician in Austin" or something like that.) From there, if you removed everything that was redundant and promotional, it would read "Brede organized the label." (Why else do people start independent record labels?)

"Psymbionic has experience as a DJ and Producer and continues to manage his artist career alongside his duties of managing the label." Referring to Burcham as "Psymbionic" seems off; if someone came into his establishment to do business, is that how he'd introduce himself? And like Brede, there's no great need outside of promotion to have all of this information about his music. (And I hate to say it, but what gave away to me that this text was added to promote is the fact that "Producer" is improperly capitalized. It could have been a mistake but I've found that lots of editors who either are promoting, are conflicted, or both have this same strange habit when they type out job titles.)

"If YOUR standard of trimming shown here is the standard we should edit by, then 85% of the music pages on wikipedia would need to be trimmed." Can I be frank? I completely agree with this. Most music-related articles on here badly fail to adhere to policy. But shouldn't we still try? Because right now, that article still comes up short. Three-quarters of its prose is under a section titled "Charitable Works" even though Gravitas is a record label, not a charity. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so much space is occupied by this stuff unless it's, to use an obnoxious phrase, to polish the label's apple. I think it should bother you. There ought to be paragraphs about artists, music, notable events, history, and there's really nothing like that. CityOfSilver 14:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver:

Wew... theres' a lot to unpack here. I want to start by saying, I don't patrol pages. I enjoy writing, code, research, etc. I can only imagine how frustrating it is at times for you to try to conform everyone to a set of standards.

" If I had any reason to think you also had a conflict, I'd have said so in an edit summary. "

You went into user:JesseBrede's edit to delete it, and deleted all my stuff. His edit (justifiably) prompted your revision and my edits were deleted in that process and labeled WP:PROMO. [URL|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CityOfSilver&action=edit&section=10 revision] This is why I'm questioning you as to why my content was labeled this way.

An interview from a reputable journalism / media outlet is ABSOLUTELY a primary source while writing about a person. There is no more accountability anywhere on the internet than the relationship between interviewer and subject. These guys didnt interview themselves and then sneak it onto the vice website. Those journalists CHOSE to interview them about their label because of the contributions they are making to their respective industries, (not for promotional reasons)

When editing an article, your red flags SHOULD be secondary sources like music blogs (95% of which farm content from other music blogs), album reviews and artist websites. I have seen the most promo s***t that would make your stomach turn on music blogs. And people cite them in music articles ALL THE TIME. Ive often gone to start an article, begin researching the "notable musician" and discover that the "blog writeup about them" was actually ghostwritten by them. THATS the red flag in citations IMO.

"Some of the prose I removed wasn't completely irrelevant but it also had me wondering why the article has it."

Because the people who are trying to learn about the arts and music industry are inspired by those involved. Providing content like this makes the article interesting and it helps contribute to the unified story. And this is why I personally cannot do edits on subjects I hate or aren't interested in. Having to decide whats important content and what isnt kills me inside. What I take away from an article could be valuable to someone else.

In journalism they teach you to stick to the facts "Who, How, When, Why, Where and What. I answer these questions every time I write.

I ACTUALLY AGREE that I could have left out the bit he said about why he started the label, but it was in the interview, and perhaps going forward I will leave out answering the Why question. So I learned something from this discussion.

..".Burcham as "Psymbionic" seems off; if someone came into his establishment to do business, is that how he'd introduce himself?"

Hes a touring musician. His "Office" is a stage. Im sure his fans scream "Psymbionic" and not "John Burcham". His music bears that name as well. I agree that I could have styled it the way you suggest but its not uncommon in the wiki music community that if I'm talking about an artists work, I would call them by their stage name.

"Three-quarters of its prose is under a section titled "Charitable Works" even though Gravitas is a record label, not a charity..."

Well to be fair, it was more, until someone deleted it. lel :p

The capital P thing is funny. And that's when I realized you think I'm a promoter or conflicted. Ugh. I wish. I'm a mom living in suburbia. I wish my life was as exciting to be in the "Secret Capital P Club" (Please laugh at that, and know that going forth I'm going to be watching the way I type to see if I have this quirk)

I spend hours reading wiki. I occasionally find a musician or artist who is not covered but linked in other pages and I write them up... And its easy to say its unnecessary "apple polishing" poppycock, but that's the nature of the beast in the entertainment/music/art category. One could argue that Wikipedia itself is just a fancy way to apple polish the whole of the human race. Its the narcissistic heart of the internet.

So, what can I do to add to this page? I cant have a short page! CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kittycolada911: "An interview from a reputable journalism / media outlet is ABSOLUTELY a primary source while writing about a person." The thing is, I know. I'm not saying "primary" like "top quality" or something like that. I'm saying it like "firsthand," where it's something straight from the subject rather than from somewhere independent of the subject. Because look at WP:PRIMARY. We actually prefer editors avoid primary sources since they tend to be biased a lot more than secondary sources. (And this stuff can be a judgment call. If you're looking at a secondary source that you think is being unfair, you're probably right.)

"you think I'm a promoter or conflicted" See, this is why discussions like this drive me nuts. I absolutely do not think this. I never did. I don't know how I can be more clear. I need genuine evidence before I even consider this a possibility. (You know. Like an editor whose username matches the legal name of the label's owner.) That you've flat-out said you aren't involved with them is even more. My guess was that you're a fan of the label and/or its music. If so, that's absolutely not a conflict of interest and this article can reap a lot of benefits from it. But it could still be a problem. Like you said, "I personally cannot do edits on subjects I hate or aren't interested in." What if Gravitas suddenly became a major point of interest in the news for extremely negative reasons? Would you be able to edit the article accordingly?

"So, what can I do to add to this page? I cant have a short page!" I'm not an EDM fan or expert. You seem to be both. So you should use your awareness to add information about the label's history, its music, its releases, and its artists. You need to be careful about adhering to reliable sourcing concerns, concerns about notability, and most importantly, concerns about writing a neutral article that informs readers but doesn't serve as an advertisement for the label. (I would emphasize the "Due and undue weight" section in that last link.) If I know nothing about Gravitas and I'm reading this article to get a comprehensive portrait, I don't care about the music made by its founders unless that music is also notable. (In the case of Brede and Burcham, it doesn't seem to be, especially compared to BT, but I don't know.) I also don't care about its charitable work because if I'm coming to an EDM label's article, it's not to read about donations and the like.

And for what it's worth, I agree that music blogs tend to be crummy sources. I can't find the policy about them specifically but the basic standards are: if a blog post contains original and not aggregated content, it's published on a reputable site like Pitchfork as opposed to something a guy runs in his spare time, and it contains evidence that it's written by a professional-caliber writer, it's reliable. (For example, if a reputable site refers to a writer as "staff," that writer's stuff is probably good.) In light of this, if you find anything that you consider unfair and it's sourced to a blog, delete it. CityOfSilver 16:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting Joe Rogan's article from vandalism. I have it on my Watchlist too but you always beat me to it. Thanks again and hopefully we can work together in the future to promote it to GA, if you're ever interested. Cheers! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@ComputerJA: Thank you! And yeah, I hear you. When I'm about to revert some bozo and some other bozo comes along and ruins my plans, I just want to take my ball and go home. CityOfSilver 02:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Approval"

When did you "approve" this change [2]? I see no previous action by you on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Acroterion: The edit in question was the one David J Johnston reverted, not the one you linked. CityOfSilver 02:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that. My question is about the approval thing. Your edit summary implies that the reversion of the IP was in conflict with an action that you had previously taken. A simpler and less confrontational approach would be something along the lines of "IP edit looks OK to me - can we discuss?" or "I think the symbol is better than the drawing" rather than claiming some sort of supervote. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'm finding a bit of this curious. If you're concerned about the lack of a "less confrontational approach," shouldn't you be alarmed that Johnston reverted good-faith, good-quality work as part of an effort to "Restore [the] last good edit?" The first contentious, attacking edit summary wasn't mine, and if you totally disagree, we're probably too far apart on our approaches to editing to find a happy medium. The IP editor's work was fantastic. My acceptance of it was borne out of a genuine, extended effort to maintain an edit that I felt improved the article. Am I wrong to think we were owed a better explanation than that? CityOfSilver 02:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

David was being a bit dismissive - not "attacking" - toward the IP in an article that has seen much vandalism from all directions, which David has spent a lot of time reverting. It may make him a little too quick to dismiss innocuous IP edits.

You're being overtly dismissive of David - "revert to last good" is not an attack. I'd like to get this back on a more cordial level. Your edit summary implied a level of superior judgment that appeared to me to be jarring. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll further note that David earlier reverted a vandal from another similar BT address that did this [3]. They both geolocate to the Birmingham area, their previous edit from the second IP was sketchy, and there's a non-zero chance they're the same person. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Acroterion: That edit was unambiguously good-faith and good. If it can't pass muster, the article ought to be semi-protected. (If we're not allowing edits from IPs who have vandalized, same deal. The IP editor I'm defending did this.)

It's pretty clear that my barking-zealot approach to edit summaries holds little water with you. That's fine. Most people are caught way off-guard when they see me react like I do, and I do feel bad for "jarring" people. The thing is, it works. Doesn't it? You seem to think being "a little too quick" or "being a bit dismissive" are issues worth working on. If everybody thought like you did, nobody would have to worry about me doing my scorched-earth thing. CityOfSilver 04:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

CityOfSilver, please see my explanation below. If you are going to refer to me, then please quote name correctly. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

CoS, please stop putting words into my mouth, and please turn off the sarcasm lock key. Your response above is the kind of thing I'm concerned about, which seems to me to be an escalation of mild concern on my part to umbrage on yours. We're not here to win. I've been a little too quick and a little too dismissive some times, and I've been called out on it. My interest was piqued, as I've explained above, by the word "approval" in your edit summary which is an unusual usage on the mostly-egalitarian Wikipedia. Hardly anyone approves anything around here and I was curious about your choice of the term. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies...

I definitely read your message very wrong on my phone so my apologies for grumpily pinging you! :P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Honestly? I found the source of confusion and I'm pretty sure I blew it worse. This isn't the first time this has happened lately where I tried to do a bunch of stuff at once, mixed up several usernames, and ended up eating shit. I thought you were the editor who added all of this because I didn't, you know, look at the two signatures. (Although maybe I looked at the first letter?) I think my message to that IP would make sense if it credited that person but if I say their name, I'll probably screw things up even more. Sorry for the confusion. CityOfSilver 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: You definitely have my full apologies no matter what though, I didn't read it correctly and reacted poorly. Anyhow, I hope you have a good day (or whatever time it is :) ) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

Good morning, Frankly I was amazed to see that you had accepted the edit made by the IP, who appears to have engaged in vandalism before? In this reversion, the symbol is far too big and does not conform to the general layout of a Wikipedia page. The wording "Revert to last good version" was meant to refer to this. Perhaps I should have been more specific! Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ivan Doan - page editing

Hi CityofSilver,

I'm contacting you in regards to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Doan

In April I removed the "This article has multiple issues" code, and then you brought it back and said I did not explained why.

It seems to me all the resources for that article like IMDB, RottenTomatoes.com, BitTorrent, etc are quite reliable and not related to the subject. In addition the person to whom the page is dedicated has acted in many films and has quite a few IMDB credits, so the question about notability is also a mistake. So I believe this "multiple issues" message should be removed. If you tell me what exactly should be added or confirmed in order to remove the "multiple issues" message, I will do so.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actorfan78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)