User talk:Unnamed anon

Archives

1

I think your username is misleading. I think you should either change it or make your signature show that it is your username. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is my username misleading? An actual unregistered user would just be an IP address, which is just a bunch of numbers. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got confused, I thought an IP user attempted to hide username poorly. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you archived the thread before I could reply, Schnapp does not say "Will is not gay" in the source you linked. He said it's "open to interpretation", and whether or not Will is gay is "beside the point", and questioned whether liking certain things makes one gay. It's not an explicit denial, which is what I sought after you claimed so. As I said, this was not the point anyway. Claiming Schnapp said Will is not gay when he didn't explicitly say so and claiming Technoblade's tweet was "not proven to exist" when it's still up on Twitter are to me hot takes. Also, you misinterpreted what I said. I said you have received more notices about sanctions applying to all editors editing in controversial topic areas than I had ever seen. I didn't say sanctions applying to you only. But you have also received a lot of guidance from editors based on your apparent heated arguments with others over controversial topics, and I'm saying you need to be careful going forward. It's not bad advice, it's good because from a glance at your contributions, since registering you have gone to a lot of divisive topic areas in the news. If it's all an editor does, and with a name like "Unnamed anon", it looks like trying to stir up arguments for the sake of it. I reiterate: I don't think "be careful with doing this" is bad advice based on what I see. Ss112 07:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair advice, thanks. Sorry that I misread your other one. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to eat your words and step back from removing anything about Will's sexuality from Stranger Things articles. Straight from Noah Schnapp's mouth, "Now it's 100% clear that he is gay and he does love Mike." He even admits that it was "obviously hinted at" as early as season one. I really do hope you are telling the truth when you say you don't have something against mentions of characters as LGBT or using LGBT sources on Wikipedia. Ss112 03:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Inside Job (2021 TV series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at WP:RFPP regarding your request for protection of List of Rick and Morty characters are obnoxious. There is no reason for you to post such comments anywhere on Wikipedia. If I see you do this again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I admit I should have controlled my anger. However, did you actually check the diffs I linked on the request for protection, or did you deny it because of my admittedly obnoxious behavior (I felt like this was the only way to reach these IPs who refuse to read the hidden note and discuss on the talk page)? The level of disruption is genuinely really, really bad. When you see other angry comments I made, for which I apologize, those were before your warning. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even without your language, I would have declined it. There hasn't been enough recent activity to justify protection. It's not "really, really bad". You're obviously too invested in this to be objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly.". Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Rotten Tomatoes directly contradicts your statement, and it is unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to stop posting your own personal synthesis that directly contradicts what some of the sources say, as you did in this edit. This film did not receive mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, so you can't say that it received mixed reviews just because one aggregator out of the two cited in the article said it was mixed. This is undue weight and cherry picking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only one adding undue weight is you, for mentioning specific aggregate sites in the lede. Read it again. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement… and, as I have made it very clear already, I do not appreciate the accusation of this being "my opinion". In the case of Pirates of the Caribbean 4 though, I can see that 33% is very low, and am willing to call that movie as having mixed-to-negative reviews. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? Since your last message on my talk page, I agreed that 33% was too low to call it mixed. Although does not solve the problem of mentioning aggregate sites by name in the lede, I agreed with you that 33% was too low. I didn't add original research to that page at all since your last post; in fact since your last post I didn't add anything at all, I only removed content that was undue. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1168156326 was rightly reverted as synthesis an hour after Special:Diff/1168142632. MOS:FILM is pretty clear that a summary in the lead must "reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources" without synthesizing something that none of them say. WP:NPOV is also pretty clear that "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". This means not making up a synthy mash-up of their views but stating what their views are. There is also a general dislike of phrases like "mixed to negative" across various WikiProjects. See WP:VG/MIXED for an example from another project which probably should be copy-pasted into WikiProject's Film's MOS, too (or moved to a more general MOS page). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that edit, yes. I actually eventually agreed with Betty Logan that "mixed-to-negative" was unencyclopedic if you read my edit summary after hers. While I still do not appreciate the block warning for something I had conceded and came to an agreement in, I do appreciate you pointing out your specific concern here. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while you may not like the presence of slang, it is not considered disqualifying for a reliable source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding that archive link to the reference on List of Teen Titans episodes. I wanted to bring to your attention that I corrected the syntax for the archive link here. You can find out more about the template syntax at Template:Cite_web#archive-url EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]