User talk:FMSky/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Orphaned non-free image File:Leslie Harvey (guitarist).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Leslie Harvey (guitarist).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
sign?
I think you forgot to sign here. Joyous! Noise! 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
RFCs
I highly recommend that you start similar RFCs for Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep, and the likes. That could be like a good movement toward a fair approach to all articles. Shahid • Talk2me 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually a good idea, it should be removed from those articles as well --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I meant it for real, didn't mean to question your fairness. Still, I don't completely agree with you. Wikipedia should be neutral but factual positive commentary isn't necessarily bad as long as it is a good summary of the article. Who could ever doubt the fact that Streep is regarded as one of the most talented actresses today. Shahid • Talk2me 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed that you didn't comment anything here, if you have some time to look through the discussion - see if you'd like to add something, and please provide your input!
P.S. But please stay calm and civil :)
Have a nice one --Moon darker (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Please watch WP:3RR at the Sweet Baby page
Just a word to the wise--I know all too well how easy it can be to lose track of one's edits within a 24-hour period. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I get it. But I'm making unrelated edits to this page. They are not "warring", these are completely seperate issues in different areas of the article that i'm adressing in hopes of making the article more neutral --FMSky (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, and that's why I didn't template you or say I was going to report you. I won't. But 3RR is a bright line rule, especially on a page that has been contentious. Even a bunch of unrelated reverts around the page could very easily get an editor in trouble. I don't think I am telling you anything you don't know, but for me, reminders are helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Tupac changes
I edited Tupac's lead using sources that contained the opinion of an academic, what's more even an administrator told me that I have good sources. Why consider this a puffery? I have tons of other academic sources that describe Tupac as both a very influential activist and one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Wikipedia should be a page of information, not a page of personal ideas. Just as it is written to other artists in the lead that they are among the most influential artists of the last century, it must also be written to Tupac. If not, what are academics for? Tupac was a very influential figure culturally and in various fields. Pier1999 (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Confusing edit
Why did you change the genres to not be in alphabetical order and change the last album to be inaccurate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cometh_the_Storm&diff=0&oldid=1219842174 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- ??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Dude whatever, just revert it then --FMSky (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I dont think genres need to be alphabetical --FMSky (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- By why change their order at all? How is it better being not in alphabetical order? This is what is confusing to me. And why you made the chronology inaccurate. I just don't understand what motivated that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cause they're imo more stoner metal so i listed that first but if you disagree just revert it
- and i put the album there cause this is a studio album chronology, the other was an EP (without an article) FMSky (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:ALBUM, these chronologies include all albums, not just studio releases. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- By why change their order at all? How is it better being not in alphabetical order? This is what is confusing to me. And why you made the chronology inaccurate. I just don't understand what motivated that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Reverts
Why do you always revert my edits? Most of the time I don't care, but why would you undo my edits on Christopher Saint Booth and Philip Adrian Booth? I added infoboxes and more detailed information. Furthermore, on the Ulterior Motives article, you also reverted my edits when the article itself is a song and should be written like a song article (with the other info surrounding its status as a lostwave song). Autograph84 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- On Ulterior Motives it was just an unhelpful rewording on your part that even introduced grammatical errors, and you added a second short description when the article already had one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulterior_Motives_%28song%29&diff=1221564712&oldid=1221556784 "The song's was discovered" --FMSky (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your comment at Talk:Antifa (United States)
You know that wasn't helpful. Telling an editor something you know will be provocative and perhaps confusing is basically a forum style comment. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Sheldon Murray
Hello FMSky. I wonder do you think that this user's edits need some discussion somewhere? They seem to be contrary to infobox advice. Or perhaps a Talk page warning might be required? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is it just me, or do the edits here look a little bit similar? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi FMSky--please explain to the editor why you reverted them. There are no edit summaries and the talk page is a red link, and I think I can guess why you did that but an explanation is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- yes but this is an obvious sock, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheldon_Murray
Sweet Baby
I hadn't noticed the subsequent addition of the CBC source. DotEsports was previously not deemed reliable for that statement. My apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"Claims"
Please note that in general, articles should not use the words "claim" or "claims". We use said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to. See WP:CLAIM. This is in reference to your revert to my edit at Tony Robbins. If you want to change it to "According to <whatever source>, blah blah", that's fine, but there is noting wrong with "reports" (which I used before) or "states that" which I used this time. Neither implies truth. The use of "claims" however implies that we doubt the source, which we don't. Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)