User talk:Matthewishere0

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

On QD and geographic locations[change source]

I don't think you're understanding. When I declined your QD tag, it was in reference to an actual pre-defined guideline, not whatever notability standard you're trying to argue for. Please take note of this going forward. Hiàn (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it even a legally recognized town? Look at how long the English Wiki page is. If you're going to say this town is notable, then that makes all small towns in New York notable. It was even on Dead-end pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewishere0 (talkcontribs) 00:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes all small towns in New York are notable. Read the guideline. IWI (chat) 00:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
And considering it has a town council I would say that it is legally recognised. Also, the town is covered by sources. This town is notable. IWI (chat) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Usually Geology features are notable themselves (example mountains,etc) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Towns, whether they have a population of 400 or 40,000, are notable. Hiàn (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hiàn: Then I want to see more "small New York town" articles being created, this is literally the only one and it is barely even notable enough, with less than 15 sources in the English Wiki and most being not properly formatted. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome to create them. IWI (chat) 22:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I'm not gonna do that tho since I don't know the notability process that well. Matthewishere0 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of towns it's simple. All of them are notable. The only settlements not notable would probably be hamlets, but even then, still probably notable. IWI (chat) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thanks for the feedback. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Eminem[change source]

The sources you have used are questionable. You've replaced reliable sources with unreliable sources in some parts. IWI (chat) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: can you tell me which sources then? What do you expect me to do, figure out the sources that were reliable? There were so many unreliable sources and I replaced them with reliable ones like MTV, AllMusic, etc. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I replaced some sources in the last few edits I made about a month ago. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources are fine, but the article overall is very complex. --IWI (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Ok, thanks for letting me know. I am assuming you didn't see my message about which sources were reliable because I pinged you incorrectly, I added an extra "letter e" after the "letter v" in Improvment. Matthewishere0 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your contributing here[change source]

Hello. Please take note of WP:ONESTRIKE, as well as WP:HOW. A lot of the content you have added is not simple. Vermont (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Content on what? Can you explain yourself, or do you want me to figure it out myself? Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
When you add content to articles, please ensure it is simple. Vermont (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
And thats why when I make my contributions, you dont see everything copy-pasted straight from the English wiki. I edit it and put it in simple english. Give me examples or something, because you telling me this is questionable. Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Here are two examples of edits where you added complex content: [1] [2]. Vermont (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(talk page stalker) It isn't easy writing in Simple English, it's very hard for me still, but with practice, and taking your time, you can do it! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: I still don't see the parts where I added complex content. Are you talking about the citations being complex? Because most of what I did was fix some sources and add a few words. Matthewishere0 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You used the word "reinstatement", for example. That is a complex word. Also you cited the Daily Mail, an unreliable source. Please do not cite the Daily Mail. IWI (chat) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignore that part. I misread. IWI (chat) 18:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
IWI: Where did I use the word "reinstatement", if I did, I'm going to change it to reentry or maybe like "went back to". I don't remember using it, so can you show me? Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Closing discussions[change source]

All discussions should be closed by a neutral party who has not "voted" in the discussion. Because you opposed the merge proposal, you cannot close the discussion as you did at Talk:Donald Trump. This is true even if the conclusion is "obvious" in favor of one view point. Only (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Only: Sorry, didn't know that discussions could only be closed by someone who didn't vote. However, that means it will take very long to close discussions in some cases because some users don't see them. Is there a bot that closes discussions ? Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked[change source]

I've blocked your editing privileges for 1 week as you copy/pasted another article from the English Wikipedia after having been warned. You're also subject to the WP:ONESTRIKE rule while on this project. You've been bitey towards other editors, unfriendly, and have disregarded genuine attempts to help you improve your writing of Simple English Wikipedia articles. After the week has passed, you may try again. But be forewarned, if you continue behaving in this manner, the next block will be an indef. Operator873talkconnect 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Operator873: - Can you show me exactly where I was warned about copy pasting? I was literally in the middle of simplifying the article when you blocked me. Could you not have just waited a little longer? Where have I "disregarded genuine attempts to improve my writing"? You're being bitey towards me by blocking me without reason, as this is virtually my first warning. Yes, I do see where the other warning was, but that one was extremely vague and I never got an explicit example of where I wasn't using simple terms. Your reason for blocking me was for "Creating bad pages" If I am "creating bad pages", then why haven't any of the ones I've created been deleted? I have read WP:ONESTRIKE, and I am not a persistent troublemaker. I have never been unfriendly to anyone on the simple english wiki. Please don't abuse your administrator privileges. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be fair, the reason for someone else mentioning onestrike to you was to let you know that people blocked on other wikis don't get a warning here and typically immediately go to indef. Operator873 was actually very generous in giving you only a week as typically we would go straight to indef on people blocked on other wikis without any kind warning, it is why we have onestrike, to avoid the back and forth debate with someone who is already known to have issues on another wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you already know where since you deleted the portion of your talk page where it was discussed. This is the type of behavior I was alluding to when saying you were bitey and unkind towards other editors. Since you may not have been aware of that, I'll pretend you weren't intentionally trying to hide the warnings previously given to you. That being said, there is a limit to my level of assuming good faith and willingness to overlook blatant and willful disregard for community policy. Consider this your very last final warning. Operator873talkconnect 16:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Operator873: - Really? That was one SMALL instance of me being "bitey" towards other editors. I've seen people use curse words and threaten them and nothing ends up happening to them, no block, no nothing. The administrator who blocked me even use curse words while blocking me, so it doesn't really make sense for you to be complaining to me that I was being "unkind". Notice how the warning given, (like i said in my previous reply), was left unanswered, and I wasn't given a straight example of where I didn't use simple english. I've created or edited many articles, more than 20, and I have only had two complaints that I wasn't using basic english. My intentions weren't to copy and paste word for word from the English Wiki, but the reason I published it was because I was planning to copy the squads but my computer started lagging so I published it and then resumed my edit. While I was in the middle of my edit, that's when I noticed the block. So it wasn't blatant disregard, and it also isn't blatant disregard if you take this message as a personal attack. I just want to let you know that I don't think the block is right, and that I should've been given a warning. Thanks. Matthewishere0 (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, @Djsasso: - I didn't know about the usual indef blocking for people blocked on other wikis, or else I would've been more reserved in my edits this whole time. Matthewishere0 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Which was why Vermont told you about it on June 5th which was a month ago.-Djsasso (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: - Yes, and like I've said twice now, I was left unanswered and wasn't given an example. Matthewishere0 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This block gives you an opportunity to do some self analysis and inward reflection on those questions and see if you can't discover the answers you seek for yourself. For a matter of reference, the edits in question are contained herein. Please review each of the listed edits, review how those edits apply to or contradict WP:HOW and other applicable community policies, and decide if the edit was appropriate. No one on this project is obligated to lead you to your mistakes. You, yourself, are wholly and solely responsible for your actions here. Operator873talkconnect 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I just realized something from @Vermont:'s claim that my edit wasn't in Basic English. Take a look at this revision: [3] "Eminem's reinstatement in the hip hop scene" is in red, which means I had actually DELETED it, not ADDED it. I added "Eminem's return to hip hop." So it turns out the only thing I had done wrong was cite Daily Mail, which i didn't know was unreliable, and published the copy pasted page word for word, which I shouldn't have done and have waited until my edits were fully completed. Basically it was an error from Vermont and a false warning. This is why I am not accepting the block. Matthewishere0 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It was not I who mentioned the word reinstatement, but another user, who is not an administrator. Nor was it a "false warning" or a mistake on my part: many of your additions are complex. As an example, here is some of what you added in that edit you linked: "Although his followers thought he was not releasing an album", "Eminem was the first artist to receive two digital diamond certifications for sales and streams of 10 million and above by...", and "reported that it was "looking into" accusations that Eminem threatened". Further, in another part of that edit you added a sentence with 6 commas; two are for an appositive, two are grammatically unnecessary, and two are for a list. That is not simplified English. My advice to you is this: if you want to be unblocked, whether it be here or elsewhere, and to contribute constructively in a community environment, you're going to need to be able to accept criticism and change your actions based off of it. Regards, Vermont (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: - Ok then maybe I did make a mistake, even then it was still a minor mistake that could've easily been fixed, and one of the few instances that I didn't use simple english. This still does not lead to a block. Matthewishere0 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: - I edited the page a few weeks ago, and I think I used simple English. Sorry for using complex English. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021[change source]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page The Weeknd has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: The edit did not seem unconstructive to me. Are you sure you didn't make an error? --IWI (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The full name only needs to be used once, it doesn't have to be used throughout the article where the last name is fine. Introduced redlinks (one is Greenwich Village, New York). There were a few other issues with the editor changing the citations from things added by bots for archiving purposes. I feel pretty solid in my decision. Mind was changed by IWI and Belwine. PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: I understand the point about the full name cites etc., but adding red links is perfectly fine and even encouraged here. Reverting with no comment indicates you identified the change as vandalism, also. --IWI (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a comment and a post to this page we are talking on. If it was vandalism, it would be a different warning and it would state vandalism in the comments. I did not mark it as such. For the red link I mentioned, the article exists, however, was not linked or searched for. Greenwich Village, New York. PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
PotsdamLamb, I agree with IWI here. When reverting an edit with no explanation, especially in Huggle, it is viewed as reverting for vandalism. Whilst it doesn't specifically say vandalism in the warning, it's worth noting that level 1 warnings never usually contain the word "vandalism", they just say "unconstructive edits". —Belwine💬📜 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok That part I can understand, I can do something different next time. PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  (change conflict) The reason why rollback is only allowed to be used on blatant spam/vandalism is because it leaves no summary. If you are not reverting vandalism, you should give a brief reason why you are reverting the change in the edit summary. Leaving no summary indicates you believed no comment was needed because it was so obvious why you reverted it; this isn't the case here. In future, please leave a summary when reverting non-vandalism/spam changes. --IWI (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I usually will if it is something short but when it is a lot I have to go through everything. I will work on that. PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I reverted it back to his version; Matt, please look at your wording and use the correct tense, fix the red links you created, fix the citations in which you removed bot added markings which are needed, full name only needs to be in the lead section, after that, just the last name; and anything else you can find.--PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
When you say "fix the red links", what do you mean? Are they pointing to the wrong target, or just not created yet? We keep red links of articles not yet created on this wiki. --IWI (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the example I gave above. Lines three and five. PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. --IWI (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: - You mentioned "fix the citations in which you removed bot markings". What does that mean? If you are talking about the citation I edited today, it was necessary because the citation was using a bare reference template, and I changed it to a cite web template. Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: - When you made the changes did you hand fill them in or use the citation templates in the editor? You put in some blank sections and you also introduced mixed dates. The editor puts them in DDMMYYYY format but the ones you put in show MMDD,YYYY. PotsdamLamb (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: - I used the citation templates in the editor. I've noticed that every time i use the visual citation editor it always inserts the blank templates, but I think there is a bot that can clean that up. Also, all of the citations are supposed to be in MM,DD,YYYY as it says in the English Wikipedia, so I have changed some and added new ones to the correct format. There was one point in the revision history where the citations in the English wiki were in DD,MM,YYYY format but someone noticed that was incorrect, so i guess some agreement was reached to change the format in a newer revision, and the new format has not been applied to the simple English wiki yet. Matthewishere0 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Antoine Griezmann[change source]

Antoine Griezmann looks good and thanks for the updates, however, please make sure to cite your sources, especially on a BLP articles. --PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: - My edit did not require any sources, because I fixed a typo, updated his stats, and corrected his name and height according to the English wiki. A big part of my changes were in the infobox, and the only actual content I changed in the article was a typo. Matthewishere0 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Matthewishere0: you changed score stats to be more up to date, but the sources are not up to date. We can’t update based on another Wikipedia because it may not be correct so we want to make sure we cite sources especially on BLPs. PotsdamLamb (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb: - The sources listed in the article have nothing to do with the goals and appearances stats. Sources shouldn't be listed in the career stats infobox section. However, I can add club and international career stats to the article, and a source is allowed there. Matthewishere0 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)