Sundayclose

Hello! Do you really find something like this helpful or constructive when the woman has lived (only) in the USA since 1946? I don't. Hard to find good faith in a thing like that. Looks more like disruption. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SergeWoodzing: I think you've been around long enough to know that WP:V is a core policy on Wikipedia. Anything that is not properly sourced can be challenged and removed. I disagree with you that residence, not citizenship, determines whether someone is described as an "American". I was born in the USA and lived in Germany, but if I had a Wikipedia article I should not be described as German-American. I would consider that insulting to Germans. What I don't find helpful is getting a message like yours when I have simply followed Wikipedia policy. I see that you added a source, which I appreciate. You could have simply added the source without leaving me a message. But since it is now sourced, let's leave it at that. Sundayclose (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you seriously believe that a Swedish-born woman who has lived in America for the last 73 years should be called a Swedish American, I can only continue to object to such nonsense. If you were 8 years old when you moved to Germany and still lived there after 73 years I would definitely call you American German. Please stop doing that kind of non-constructive work! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SergeWoodzing: As I said, you added a source. Let's leave it at that. You have no additional reason to be messaging me, so I'll ask you not to do so. And please stop telling me what to do. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We all have the right to ask other users to stay away from our talk pages, except when it comes to warnings of this kind. They are a part of the process required of us all to try to discuss a user's behavior & avoid the necessity of administrative review. We cannot ask for administrative review without this kind of interaction first. Thus I just ask: do you intend to continue to do similar work such as removing "American" from "Swedish-American" in the description of an actress who according to her article arrived in the USA when she was 8 and has lived there ever since, for 73 years? If you reply "No" we're done & OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SergeWoodzing: Since you can't seem to get the hint, I am now officially telling you to stay off of my talk page regarding this issue in this section. And that includes responding to this message. You've made your point; you don't need to keep repeating it. If you need a warning, consider this a warning instead of a request. I suggest reading WP:HARASS. I have no obligation to tell you what I "plan to do". If you think I've violated a policy in my past edits (not future edits), please address it at ANI, not here. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sundayclose, neither is editing other users' userspace a "policy violation" by itself, nor is creating accounts for testing illegitimate by itself (WP:TESTALT). I understand that having to provide advice to the same user again and again can be cumbersome, but that shouldn't lead to factually incorrect statements, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

("If you simply wanted to use the account for test edits, you need to have the second account deleted. See WP:HOWTODELETE for this process."... This is wrong on so many levels...) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: Understood, and thanks. I was trying to help this user from inadvertently getting blocked for use of multiple accounts.That being said, I am correct in instructing the user to disclose the use of multiple accounts. Unfortunately, this user has received a block for abusing multiple accounts, even though I did not make a sockpuppet report. Sundayclose (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

True, true and no worries. Special:Diff/1134771004 was pretty close to a disclosure and they haven't edited since, so I'm not too happy about that block reason. If they appeal the block by simply explaining the situation and promising to clearly disclose any future accounts, either the block reason needs to be corrected or there is no need to keep up the block. An unblock is probably undesirable, though, as I found their talk page via WP:AIV. Exhausting the community's patience seems to be the actual issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

They just edited yesterday… 1/20/2023 KaytieKay (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(I am so sorry—please feel free to delete my comment above. It isn’t applicable. I thought we were talking about 80s Sam.! KaytieKay (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I know you’re going to be gone but hopefully you’ll see this. I’m too much of a newbie to warn. Can we just get rid of “80s Sam” already? He just made some idiot changes to Deen Castronovo’s wiki that are incorrect. The info was more accurate before he messed with him, as now he has made Deen a member in bands he was just associated with. (Which is what it said before he messes with it.) Furthermore, I’ve asked some his fans and his social media manager not to edit it so zealously. It was the like the Barbra Streisand effect. The more you try to hide something, the worse it gets. Now I am hesitant to change it back. Because Wikipedia and Google are now even more linked, excessive changes affect the algorithm of what is emphasized when searching for a celebrity. (Their Google knowledge panel.) I work for Meta—hopefully that doesn’t affect your opinion of me. Lol. Before that, I worked for Google. Knowledge panels are a big part of what I do. Not to be all braggy and stuff, but I just felt like I should put some credibility in my rambling. (And I’m SO SO sorry I did. The guy pi$$es me off. 2603:8001:3E00:3CF:5435:32CD:F54F:1640 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed I wasn’t signed in. Hope I did. Lol. That shows you how new I am. He just edited Deen’s on the 20th so yesterday. KaytieKay (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(I didn’t even know how to reply to this. I probably did it wrong—that’s how new I am.) 😳 KaytieKay (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for leaving a message on my Talk page. I am replying here as suggested. You reverted my edit to Taxman. I assumed that the the preceding sentence and the links from from 'pound' and 'shilling' in the sentence I added were sufficient verification for the explanation; you obviously disagreed. Normal procedure here would be to add a 'citation needed’ tag, possibly with a message announcing that you’ve added the tag. Reverting is not normally necessary in situations like this, usually being reserved for vandalism and disruptive or bad faith edits: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

Also: 'False belief that the WP:Verifiability (WP:V) policy requires citations, much less particular citation formatting, for everything: Example: "Undid addition to discography section; no inline citation.” Policy: WP:V requires inline citations for all quotations and for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, not for all content, and the citations do not otherwise have to be formatted a certain way or be any more detailed than is necessary to identify the source. All content must be verifiable with reliable sources, but an uncontroversial statement is not actually required to be verified with a citation at all unless and until it is controverted.’ Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater

I have followed your suggestion and added a citation to a statement by George Harrison in an interview, which improves the article, so thank you for that, but you might want to consider the points I've raised before reverting a good faith edit in future. BTW - the entire introduction to this article is currently citation free. Robert P Connolly (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Robert P Connolly: Thanks for your message, and thanks for adding a citation. I didn't say your edit was not done in good faith. WP:V does not require a citation unless an edit is challenged. In that case, a citation is required. In retrospect, I should have simply left a "citation needed" tag instead of reverting, although that is not necessarily "normal procedure". Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think you made a mistake by restoring the lists of countries and organizations that was added to School Strike for Climate. You stated on LivingOrchid's talk page that they did not provide an adequate explanation of their edit, even though they very clearly did. The portion that they deleted was asserting that almost every single country in the world plus Antarctica supports the school strike, and that it's opposed by several Islamist organizations, with no citations. How does keeping this make the article better? Mounched (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mounched: You have a point, and I think adding "citation needed" tags is sufficient for now. If no sources are forthcoming soon, feel free to remove the information. LivingOrchid's reason for removal was that the countries are "not at war" with each other, which makes little sense. Sundayclose (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, apologies for my recent statement on M3GAN. I can see you’ve reverted my edit to the article’s current state. I didn’t know what I was thinking when trying to tell readers that they don’t need to know what exactly the titular character was using to kill someone.

There was some IPs that tried to state what was actually used, so I just added in that statement. I just thought that readers wouldn’t have to think of something else.

Again, my apologies. Edwordo13 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Edwordo13: No apology needed. Thanks for your message! Sundayclose (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you have made a mistake in reverting my edit to the Southern American English content. I did, in fact, state what the source was. The very map shown in the article from the Atlas of North American English, sources [22][23]. I will be re-adding my revisions accordingly. Estshr (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Estshr: The map is described as "approximate". And the two maps on which it is based conflict with each other. That makes your edit a synthesized conclusion based on your personal interpretations. You need to cite a reliable source before restoring your edit, for two reasons. First, you violated WP:SYNTH. Second, if an edit is challenged, it either needs a reliable source or consensus on the talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added an additional reliable source for my edits. Estshr (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your edit, but only because I found a rock solid piece of evidence to support the categorization. See the White House's profile on him here, and backed up by this. There's really no convenient place to put this information in the article though. Maybe you can come up with one? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hammersoft: Sources belong in the article, not my talk page. No place to put it in the article??? That makes no sense. Look at tens of thousands of other articles. You write a sentence that he self-identified as Baptist and cite the sources. Don't restore and expect others to do the work for you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can we please back off the negativity please? I asked for your suggestions on place to put the information. It's clear he was a baptist. Removing it outright is wrong. It's not exactly a controversial point, as the White House itself clearly notes his position. Let's improve the article, not template each other with {{uw-unsourced1}}. Thank you. I'm closing the discussion on my talk page, so we can keep it in one place; here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hammersoft: I'll back of the negativity when you start complying with WP:V. You been around here many years, long enough to know that core policy. And you're not "improving the article" by violating that policy. And read WP:BURDEN. The responsibility to provide a citation belongs with you, not me or anyone else. Sundayclose (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since you intend on remaining hostile, we're done here. Goodbye. Please don't ping me. I don't need any more hostility in my life. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hammersoft: If you don't want a ping, don't message me. I'm not hostile, just following policy and asking you to do the same, which you apparently feel you have some sort of entitlement that allows you to ignore it, then argue when someone points it out. I agree we're done here; there's was nothing to discuss after my first message above. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

And despite my request, you ping me anyways. I'll make this note, and leave the rest to you. Accusing me of having an "entitlement" is a personal attack. You have been overtly hostile since the beginning of this. I have no interest in working with people who are so. My entreaty to you was to work forward to find a good place to put it in the article. Instead of trying to be collegial, you've attacked me, templated me, and accused me. I'll give you the same wording you gave me; you've been here long enough to know core policy, specifically in this case WP:NPA. The microphone is all yours. I won't be reading what you reply here, even if you ping me. That's not a moment of me sticking my fingers in my ears and going "la la la la la", but rather I refuse to work with people who are overtly hostile. I hope you have a nice day. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added the sentence in question to Harding's article, with a source, and added an associated category. Moving on.... —ADavidB 20:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hammersoft: As I've already said, if you want me to stop pinging you, stop messaging me. Yet another example of you thinking you're allowed to do things that the rest of us are not allowed to do. And if you consider that a personal attack, report me, but you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first and think about your multiple violations of WP:V and your repeated accusations of my hostility just because I asked you to follow that policy. Someone else did your work for you by adding a source. I suppose you'll call that a personal attack. I never expected you to read anything I ping you about. But when you repeatedly message me, it's obvious that you are, in fact, reading it. Now, that will be my last ping unless you decide to drag this out even more. But my suggestion is drop the stick and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm old enough to remember the AmEng versus BritEng pronunciation confusion happening with Meg Griffin of Family Guy when fansites and episode guides made in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations invariably listed her first name as "Meghan" instead of the correct Megan. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added a section about the sexual assaults in Lebanon, and I have added several citations about what happened (some of them are of course in Arabic since it happened in Lebanon), why has it been removed?? 77.246.75.81 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Did you bother to actually read the warnings I gave you? Some of what you wrote is unsourced or poorly sourced, and when you are referring to living people that is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. The entire section is very poorly written. And you added your own commentary, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Don't attempt to restore the material until you make suggested edits on the article's talk page and wait for others to respond. Read WP:BRD and WP:CON. Making poorly sourced edits against WP:BLP policy can very quickly result in loss of editing privileges. And don't edit or comment on talk pages while you're signed out of your account. It's confusing and against Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

hey, you recently removed by edit on The Beatles page, saying that the citation is a dead link. I cross checked and the link is working for me. please recheck the link: https://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-of-all-time-artists/ Bhkkbey250 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"And all quotation". In other words: I cant just say the constitution says something without providing proof along with its quotation where it states what your claiming specifically. Neither you or the op did such. Hence our current circumstances. PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences". Your welcome and have a good one! PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PaUZz LYte: I did, on the article's talk page. You just didn't take the time to look, as usual. Don't message me about this again; take it to the article's talk page. If you are tempted to ignore that request, consider it a warning and read WP:HARASS. Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

you removed the timeline from the band members section yet it is simply a graphical representation of the info in the band members section. Why not just leave it with the notice of that you want a source? Mighty Midas (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mighty Midas: Please review WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia. The Members section has been unsourced for years. That's a sufficient reason to remove the timeline. It would not be a policiy violation to remove the Members section also, but I'm willing to wait a while before I do that. I requested sources there. It is impossible to remove part of a timeline, although part of the Members section can be removed if it is not sourced in a timely manner. If you would like to restore the timeline, feel free to add the sources to the Members section (for which I would be grateful), but don't restore the timeline without sources. My experience is that citation requests in band articles go unresolved for a very long time, too long to leave an unsourced timeline. Fans love to add content, but they're not always very good at providing sources. The timeline will always be available in the edit history and easy to restore when sources are supplied. Sundayclose (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, most band members sections go unsourced. I will look to see what sourced band members sections use and try and find some for the velvet underground. Thanks for getting back to me Mighty Midas (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kinda wanted to apologize for the shit I spewed up earlier this morning. Not really the best guy and I let myself get into arguments that probably get me nowhere. I do apologize how I acted. Anyways. Thanks. Good day A.R.M. 00:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ARMcgrath: I've certainly found myself doing that kind of thing on occasion. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't apologize to this dude. He's garnered a reputation for reckless and irresponsible behavior in his edits, sometimes gutting entire pages and then lashing out when people check him on his bad behavior.

He has tried to weaponize his knowledge of Wikipedia against editors he disagrees with and refuses to back down or apologize when confronted with information that empirically contradicts his opinion, only telling people to stop harassing him when they confront him. 45.19.35.32 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pardon, but OK? The source is reliable and is literally mentioned with the proper template in the text. 37.100.233.58 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:BURDEN notes editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. That's going to have to be me right now. The category was introduced only two days ago; I pointed to the existing sources at Need-blind admission, promised you that I would add content to the articles with them, and asked for a bit of patience given the large task; and you can check my edit history to see that I've been actively doing so since then. Reverting the batch with the inaccurate summary Editor is taking their time fixing this problem was an unnecessarily aggressive move, of a piece with your argumentative comments at my talk page.

Overall, I think you will have an easier time on Wikipedia if you approach editing in a bit more of a collegial manner. Personally, when editors add seemingly helpful but unsourced material, the first part of my comment to them is always to thank them for the contribution before even asking for a source, recognizing that Wikipedia is a work in progress where incremental improvements are helpful. The next time you encounter a similar situation, I think if you begin that way, and frame your ask in a less demanding way that respects that we are all volunteers, you will find others are a lot more amenable to help. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sdkb: You added the category indiscriminately to dozens of articles in a matter of minutes with little regard to whether the article supported the category, then you expected me (twice) to do the work for you in providing sources and/or identify the articles without sources, then you distorted interpretation of WP:BURDEN to again try to shirk your responsibility. I desperately tried to be "collegial" in my communications with you, to no avail. You created a mess and only decided to creep forward fixing it after I repeatedly pushed you. And until you make fixing the mess as much of a priority as you did creating it, I'll remove the category without any apology to you. Stay off of my talk page if all you want to do is offer useless "advice", and that includes a response to this message. If you are tempted to ignore that request, consider it a warning. Instead, spend a few minutes cleaning up the mess. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

At Untitled Beetlejuice sequel you reverted me without checking the sources about filming. The sources Collider and Variety clearly say filming began on May 10.

Collider states in 13th para under the section : "Following the initial reports that Beetlejuice 2, we also got an estimate on when the project is looking to begin filming. The film will begin production on Wednesday, May 10, 2023, in the UK. That being said, with the ongoing WGA strike, there is a chance that filming will be paused, but as of right now Warner Bros seems to be intent on moving forward regardless of the Strike."

Variety says: "There’s little information available about the follow-up to Tim Burton’s 1988 film about a pesky poltergeist, but the filmmaker is returning with Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice and Winona Ryder as Lydia Deetz. Additional cast members include “Wednesday” star Jenna Ortega as the daughter of Ryder’s character, as well as Justin Theroux in a yet-to-be-revealed role. Production is expected to commence in London on May 10."

Neither says late May or early June. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Linkin Prankster: No, the sources don't say filming began (your word) on May 10. They say will begin and expected to commence. Wikipedia does not use its voice to predict the future. Read WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Films sometimes delay or cancel production for various reasons, and neither your nor I know whether that will happen. The problem isn't that I didn't check my edit. You didn't completely represent what the sources say, nor did you look at my previous edit summaries which clearly explain. But that's OK, I probably wasn't very clear either. What we really is need a source clearly indicating that filming actually began on May 10, not that it was expected to begin. In the mean time, I just changed your edit to reflect that filming is expected to begin on May 10, which more accurately reflects what the sources say. Please don't change that and we should be OK. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is okay but you you didn't even read the sources before reverting me. They never said early May or late June. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've undone your revert of another user on Beetlejuice restoring the Untitled Beetlejuice sequel link. When the article is created, then it will be appropriate to add it. Until then it serves no purpose asides from confusing the reader. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Linkin Prankster: Thanks for the message. I disagree that it serves no purpose, but this one is not worth arguing about. Hopefully the draft will become an article soon and it will be a moot point. Sundayclose (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have RS where she states that she prefers they/them pronouns? GLAAD uses she/her pronouns for Mattea Roach, and they should know.

MOS:GENDERID is clear: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.

We need Mattea's own words, her/their "SELF-identification", not what others say about it (I know there are a couple sources that say she uses they/their), even if it's RS. We need Mattea's own words in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Valjean: Thanks for the message. I'm aware of MOS:GENDERID as well as WP:BLPCAT. Read her article, which uses they/them: Mattea Roach. I simply made my edit consistent with her article. If you want to challenge her use of pronouns, it's best to do so at her article. If it's changed there I'll change my edit for consistency. By the way, when she plays Jeopardy the host consistently uses "they/them", although I'm not sure if that's considered a reliable source. But that's how I found out, then I checked her article. I don't have much doubt, but at this point I don't have time to search for a source. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Only took a minute to find this. Feel free to add to her article. Sundayclose (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned, I'm aware of a couple sources, including that one, which say Mattea prefers they/them pronouns, but so far no one has produced RS where Mattea states that she/they prefers they/them pronouns, not even evidence that Mattea uses them about herself. That's what we need. The changes at the Mattea Roach article are made by editors who openly admit they are using OR, and I have disputed that violation of OR policy. We've been discussing the issue, but once I was personally attacked on the talk page, I withdrew from the discussion. Some people there are strongly personally invested in forcing this change. I don't care either way. For example, I'm personally fine with using she/her pronouns for Amy Schneider. Those who advocate the change even muddy the waters by using our way of dealing with transgender persons, but there is no evidence Mattea is trans. Mattea identifies as lesbian. When I have stated Mattea is not trans, I have been accused of being transphobic, which is a nasty personal attack.

To follow policy, we need SELF-identification. No one has been able to produce evidence of such, so the current use of they/them pronouns for Mattea in our articles is against policy. The fact that some other sources do so is irrelevant to the question of SELF-identification, and I find it rather compelling that GLAAD doesn't do it. The most we could do is use attribution and state that "these sources claim Mattea prefers they/them pronouns", but we can't do it ourselves by using OR and violating MOS:GENDERID. It's also a BLP violation as it's an unsourced change. Unsourced controversial BLP content must be removed immediately.

We need to be able to separate what a few other sources do and what we do. Those sources are not bound by our PAG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Valjean: I respect your opinion, but here's my opinion. If a reliable source states, "Roach uses they/them pronouns", that's sufficient. I don't think we need a source that explicitly states, "Mattea says, 'We use they/them pronouns'." I think that stringent requirement would eliminate many people with articles unnecessarily. If a source is reliable, it can be trusted to provide accurate information without a direct quotation from the person. Some people who use they/them don't see the need to do so as long as their wishes are properly represented by a source. If I used they/them and the New York Times said I do so, that would be sufficient. I don't have to explicitly be quoted in an article saying, "I use they/them pronouns." Just as it would be sufficient if the NYT stated that I'm Catholic or Jewish, gay or straight, white or a person of color, butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. We trust reliable sources to get it right. If someone finds another reliable source that disputes it, that would be a different matter. Thanks again for bringing all of this to my attention. Sundayclose (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You write: "If I used they/them and the New York Times said I do so, that would be sufficient."

I agree: "If Mattea used they/them about themself and The New York Times said that Mattea did so, that would be sufficient," but we have no evidence that Mattea does that. I have asked for evidence and no one has provided it. Some others use those pronouns for Mattea, but we don't have evidence that she does or that she has said anything about it. Right now OR speculation rules here, and some editors want to force anyone, even CISgender gays and lesbians, to use they/them pronouns, even if there is no evidence they are non-binary or transgender. Not every lesbian wants to use they/them pronouns. Yes, we know that CISgender people can be non-binary, but without any evidence to the contrary, we just treat them as we always have. "Cisgender people may or may not conform to gender norms and stereotypes associated with their gender identity." Around here, we use the pronouns which they use to describe themselves. If there is no suspicion in RS they are non-binary, a sex assigned at birth boy is called he and a sex assigned at birth girl is called she. Isn't that still true? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a matter of OR, BLP, and attribution.

1. OR is violated when an editor's own conclusions, common sense, and counting of uses of they/them or she/her on a website (like Jeopardy!), is substituted for actual RS.
2. BLP is violated when an editor inserts unsourced and contentious descriptions without proper sourcing.
3. Attribution is involved when we attribute statements to the authors, such as "Trudy Ring of The Advocate writes that "Mattea Roach, a writer and podcaster from Toronto, who is queer and uses they/them pronouns,..."[1] That is generally acceptable practice for documenting opinions, but not facts. It's a fact that Trudy Ring is of that opinion. We use such attributed statements when an actual self-description is lacking, but it does not meet our policy requirement for how we act here, especially because it's a BLP matter.

What is lacking is her actual SELF-description.

This leaves us with a conundrum because, according to the requirement for a self-description, we are currently violating OR and BLP. Should we start a centralized discussion somewhere? We need to clear this up and change our policy requirement for a self-description (with consequent serious BLP issues to follow). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Valjean: Well, thanks for your opinion. I just happen to disagree with some of it. To me, if a very reliable source (such as the NY Times, or the source I cite above) says that Roach uses they/them, that's sufficient. Requiring a quotation from her about her pronoun preference is too restrictive and would drastically change the landscape of what's acceptable on Wikipedia and, in effect, not reflect the individual's preference. Wikipedia generally accepts what reliable sources say, including for BLP issues. If a reliable source reports it, that's all that's needed unless someone legitimately challenges the reliable source. My two cents. I haven't looked into this very much, but I think a definitive conclusion about not accepting reliable sources to verify self-identification needs a consensus at WT:BLP rather than thrashing it out one article at a time. I certainly would respect a clear consensus there. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thanks! Sorry it was a revert at first before I added the link, as I was feeling lazy! All the best & have a great weekend! Stereorock (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sundayclose, your trimming of the plot summary of The Kingdom (film) was well-intended, but misguided. You want to trim the plot of to avoid plot bloat, that's fine. But not in such a drastic matter like you did on it. We got to keep what was written. Find anything that is should be trimmed down and keep anything that is important and take it from there. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BattleshipMan: It was far beyond the 700 word limit. And in case you didn't know, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Feel free to trim it yourself, but keep in under 700 words. Or get consensus to keep it as long as it is. Otherwise don't criticize a good faith effort. It's easy to criticize; that probably took you less than a minute. Improving Wikipedia takes a little effort, not knee-jerk criticisms. Sundayclose (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sundayclose: Reducing the huge amount of plot summary that size isn't helpful either. If you want to trim it down, you leave it as is and get someone else who can do that with such drastic reduction of plot summary or whatever else you want to do. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BattleshipMan: I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but what part of "trim it yourself" do you not understand. As I said, otherwise get consensus on the talk page to violate WP:PLOTBLOAT, which is just as valid as WP:STATUSQUO. Sundayclose (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sundayclose: Let's find some way to a create a resolution here. Trimming it down that plot summary that extreme isn't helpful in my book. I find trimming down the plot summary without removing that amount of plot material easier because it helps keep anything essential and helps the summary flow better. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BattleshipMan: The solution is simple. You can trim it down to 700 words. You don't have to do it today. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Again, I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but if you don't want to put any effort into improving the article, either get consensus for the old version or move on. I'm sure we both have more important things to do. In the time you have spent repeatedly messaging me, you could have spent some time rewriting the plot summary. I not rehashing this endlessly. It's up to you if you want to try to improve the article, but there's no point in sending me the same message again and again. Sundayclose (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BattleshipMan: Reducing the plot summary to the size you did won't don't any good for me to get it down to 700 words. I'm going to get someone else to help out with this. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BattleshipMan: If you have nothing new to say, I'm finished on this topic. Thanks for your messages. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Disclosure, Battleshipman did ask for my input on my talk page. I used wordcounter.com and it comes out as 673 words so it is below the limit, the tag appears to be from when it was 1400 words. I am happy to give it a once over once I finish work to tighten it up but it being one long paragraph isn't appropriate or very readable or aesthetically interesting. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for your message. I have no problem with anyone else editing the plot summary, as long as it doesn't exceed 700 words. Sundayclose (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sundayclose, just to make sure the ping doesn't fail – your input would be welcome at Kesc4399's talk page. I'm sorry for the annoyance this may cause especially given your request for them not to message you again, but the annoyance of eventually having to argue at ANI for a block would probably have been greater. Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: Done. You haven't annoyed me. Kesc4399's unending walls of useless text exhaust me, which is why I told him to message me on the article talk page, not here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Walter Plecker's orginial 1943 list of surnames, including the Tennessee Melungeons, should be cited on this page in full for better comprehension as to how the term has been used in history. StephanieTree (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why did you erase my valid source ciations for Walter Plecker's 1943 list and Will Allen Dromgoole's depiction of Calloway Collins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieTree (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I read the Spider-Man comics where he is said to have mentioned in some comics that his superhuman speed, is called "proportionate speed of a spider" and "spider-speed", you know that Spider-Man does have proportionate speed of a spider, not just agility. I have links to share this topic to you; https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Spectacular-Spider-Man-1976/Issue-87?id=19204, https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Amazing-Spider-Man-1963/Issue-40?id=4008, and https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Amazing-Fantasy-1962/Issue-15. This is the site called "readcomiconline" I read those and it's free, so ok, I'll never to editing war or repeat things back, but I can discuss this topic to you in Spider-Man talk page. But I have evidence where these Spider-Man comic books explain that Spider-Man really does have superhuman speed. Aaeliaba (talk) 1:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs)  

Note: When the first character of a post is a space, the section "subscribe" link doesn't show up. Again sorry for the misclick. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@FlightTime: No problem. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you were right to revert, for the following reasons:

• The hidden text is a pair of comments: first at the top of the Examples section there's <!-- Additional items, unless attributed to Spooner, AND RELIABLY CITED as such, will be speedily removed.--> which is followed after the introductory text by <!-- This section is RESTRICTED to the nine examples given by Lederer. Additions will be removed. -->, and then at the end of the Examples section there's a repeat of <!-- Additional items, unless attributed to Spooner, AND RELIABLY CITED as such, will be speedily removed.-->. So, it brackets the Examples section. It refers to "this section", meaning the Examples section. But I was not editing that section. I was editing the Popular Use / Culture section, under Literature.
• The reason I said "I don't need to cite a source" is because the source is as it appears in the main text: a 1941 lecture Life, Letters and Education. I can add that this lecture was given at Smith College (Nov 13 1941) and Wellesley College (Dec 2 1941), in Massachusetts. I could also add that it was reprinted in a book in 1953, but that's not really the source, is it? Or is it?

 Card Zero  (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining your revert of my edit, and for acknowledging that it was a good faith edit, and for giving your reason. I won't change it back, but I still think it looks weird for only that song in the sequence to not be linked.

And I apologize if this isn't the right place for this note. I'm still learning stuff. :) Yesthatbruce (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Yesthatbruce: Not really weird. It happens frequently on Wikipedia. Read MOS:REPEATLINK. Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sundayclose. In these edits on Natalie Portman, you cited several sources that don't fully support the claim or demonstrate that the claim is due. Not all the journals cited verify the paper's release year, so the use of some to indirectly draw any connection is inappropriate. The other source cited, Oracle of Bacon, published a completely different number than what is neutrally claimed in the article. Are there reliable sources that highlight Portman's Erdős–Bacon number as uniquely meaningful and correlate it to a specific project that she's done? KyleJoan^talk 02:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@KyleJoan: Linking each paper that connects her to Erdos is a perfectly acceptable way to establish an Erdos number. That's not SYNTH. It's merely a calculation, which is permitted by WP:CALC. Establishing a Bacon number with oracleofbacon.org has been determined by consensus at Talk:Erdős–Bacon number as a reliable means of establishing a Bacon number because it is based on the database of actors and roles at IMDb.com. Although IMDB generally is not acceptable for many uses, it is reliable for cast lists. In any event, if you click the link in the citation to IMDb, the actors and films in the link are provided, which are easily verified by clicking the names of the films. Please don't revert cites to oracleofbacon.org. I agree that the www.rrrjewishtrivia.com source is not reliable, but it's not needed anyway. Sundayclose (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's a really far stretch of what CALC permits and reaches beyond what my cursory understanding of what that consensus supports. It's one thing to have verifiable Erdos and Bacon numbers and using CALC to determine the Erdos-Bacon number. What we have here is a verifiable Bacon number (still not established as due via multiple sources) and an unverifiable Erdos number determined via CALC, which are then put together to create an synthesized, unverifiable Erdos-Bacon number. Not only does that violate SYNTH, it also violates the due weight policy. If you're arguing that Oracle of Bacon by itself is reliable for a Bacon number, then why not just add a Bacon number to every BLP where a number has been assigned? Why use CALC to determine an Erdos number and then improperly synthesize an Erdos-Bacon number? KyleJoan^talk 03:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@KyleJoan: Not a "stretch" in the least. It is simply adding the number of published papers that connect Portman and Erdos. 1+1+1+1+1=5. There's no "stretch" to that, and it's clearly covered by CALC. Not SYNTH. If you think it is, this is an issue that goes beyond a disagreement between you and me. Seek consensus at WT:NOR, the Portman talk page, or the EBN talk page. If you want to question whether the Erdos-Bacon number itself is notable, please take it up at the talk page. The article has been nominated for deletion three times, each time with a consensus to keep it. But if you want to venture a fourth nomination, please do so. Sundayclose (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

But 5 isn't the number on Portman's article. It's 7, which violates CALC because it is not "a meaningful reflection of the sources". I'm only speaking about the Erdos-Bacon number in relation to Portman. If I removed a BLP subject's poorly sourced sexual orientation, would you think I had an issue with sexual orientation and wanted that article deleted? KyleJoan^talk 03:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@KyleJoan: Jesus Christ, think before you leave a message. Erdos number is 5. Bacon number is 2. 5+2=7. EBN is 7. Take this to the article talk page and stop splitting hairs and annoying the hell out of me. Sundayclose (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you keep confronting socks on their talk pages and threatening to report them rather than just reporting? Seems like a waste of time to give them endless warnings after they've already been blocked a thousand times Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: Thanks for your message, but did you look at the date on that edit?? I have made at least five or six SPI reports on Cadeken socks. I haven't done so in about a year because Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster and I got tired of it. As for the edit you linked, it can be a collossal waste of time doing an SPI report on an IP because CU never confirms an IP, only registered users. I don't think I have any obligation to watch for Cadeken socks and report them. I mean no offense and I apologize in advance if this message bothers you, but your message is puzzling. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I never said you have any "obligation" to hunt down Cadeken socks. All I'm suggesting is that when you encounter a sock, it might be a better idea to deny recognition, report and move on instead of making a fuss about it on their talk. All that does is give them the attention they desire. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: Thanks for the suggestion. I've generally found with Cadeken IP socks that stating that another edit will result in an SPI report is often sufficient to make the IP stop using that IP address. Trust me, I've spent a lot of time dealing with Cadeken socks, registered and nonregistered. I've seen a pattern. But if you'd like, if I run across a suspected Cadeken IP sock, I'll let you know then you can handle it the way you think is best. I've wasted enough time on Cadeken. I have better things to do, on Wikipedia and in the real world. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sundayclose,

I realize that editor Totocugno is hitting all of your buttons but please do not get caught up in an edit war yourself. If necessary, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring rather than continuing to revert. I posted a warning to their talk page but they were just removed. I understand you are exasperated today but I just wanted to remind you that when two editors are involved with edit warring, they usually both face sanctions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: Thanks Liz. Point taken. All the best! Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The information I put forth was in the Snopes article that was cited. I was merely adding more information from the same source. ErichoTTA (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ErichoTTA: You're right, so I stand corrected. However, we have a worse problem. Your edit is a copyright violation. See WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously because of the legal liability. And another problem: You need to cite a reliable source for the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is probably better if we stop engaging with the KMart IP, who is a long-term block evader. They'll just keep trolling as long as they're getting attention. MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MrOllie: Good point. Thanks for the info. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Friday the 13th franchise article overview content looks weird with different film merged together Milighuh (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Milighuh: Get consensus for your changes on the article talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I got a talk page message from Iss246 insisting on communicating with me by email, but they refuse to provide any explanation. When I hopped on their talk page, I caught a glimpse of them saying they emailed you. In the interest of transparency, I prefer keeping all correspondence regarding Wikipedia on Wiki. Seeing they were just in contact with me on my talk page about email and how they just emailed you suggest whatever it is might be related to psychology topic. I wonder why they refuse to discuss in the open. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Graywalls: I copy-pasted the email to me below. I will not play immature games by surreptitiously trying to triangulate one editor against another. I'll leave it to you to speculate whether you would have received a similar email about me. I've tried to assume good faith with Iss246 and mostly stayed neutral on the issue of the Spector websites until edit warring occurred. Sundayclose (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I write to address a matter that arose because Graywalls unknowingly--I emphasize unknowingly--, because he is admittedly unfamiliar with IO psychology, made mistake that I hesitate to correct or address publicly. He refuses to have an email exchange with me. I thought I would write to you because you are a reasonable person. I say that and acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about things. Sometimes our passions heat up an argument more than the argument merits.

On August 28 on the WikiProject Psychology talk page Graywalls criticized the stevenspector website on the grounds that Steven Spector is not a known researcher. I am an IO psychology insider. Like other IO insiders, I know that the stevenspector site was created by Steven and Paul Spector, a highly respected researcher with an h-index of 91 and more than 400 publications. Like other IO insiders, I know that Spector named the site to honor his son, Steven, who died long before his time. The site is a joint product of Steven and his dad.

I did not want to argue about about the site's name on the WikiProject Psychology talk page. It would be unseemly. If Spector or his wife would happen to see that argument, it could be painful. I don't want to add to that pain. Perhaps you can tactfully ensure that the website would remain in place. It is an excellent site and that it is not-for-profit.

iss246

Sundayclose (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eagle_Scouts&diff=1174621102&oldid=1174620843

that is the second time you bogus templated me. Did you read the edit summary? NO. Did you read what I removed? NO Your BS post says I removed a template and I didn't. One of the bits is that he's an Eagle Scout and that's obvious by being on the list so it's fluff. so is being a 7th generation Texan. NOT NOTALBLE INFO FOR THE LIST. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND STAY AWAY FROM ME AND LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

While I disagree that the term "role" only applies to film (Protagonist/antagonist/etc. are ways to describe a character's role in a story, written or otherwise), my reason for that edit was primarily to fix the incorrect grammar in that sentence. Using the word "character" does not grammatically follow the verb "appeared in" established in the first clause, i.e. "She appeared in [...] a supporting character" is incorrect, hence my edit. One can "appear in a role", but "appear in a character" sounds wrong and unnatural. If you insist on keeping the word "character", the sentence would need to be rewritten with an additional preposition or verb. Such as "She also appeared in Finders Keepers and End of Watch, and as a supporting character in The Outsider" or "[...] and was a supporting character in..." or something like that. Just my thoughts, thanks. Robber93 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Robber93: Thanks for you message. I'm not sure whether I understand you correctly. There is nothing ungrammatical about "She appeared in Finders Keepers ...". I just now changed the second clause to "and later was a major supporting character in The Outsider". Now there should be no grammatical issues. I must disagree about "roles" in novels. Actors audition for "roles". Novelists create "characters", not roles. Read Etymology 1 at role. But with the change I made, that is now a moot point. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, an IP changed it back to the outdated information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vchimpanzee: No, the IP did not change the citation. I first reverted because the citation was outdated. You reverted me, restoring the same outdated citation. I then updated the citation. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I must have done something wrong when I looked at the history.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Atomoxetine must be highly effective in improving school performance as it can enhance significantly their attention span, impulse control, academic performance, and peer relationships. As noted from the highly substantiated meta-analysis that it is equally efficacious as methylphenidate. It is logically impossible to entertain the possibility that it can be simultanously as effective as MTH yet have no benefit on school performance while MTH does therefore referencing single outdated 2014 study should be removed in my view. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов: You've made a synthesized conclusion. Research must specifically state that academic performance is improved. I've treated dozens of kids with medication that decreased measured ADHD symptoms, but academic performance stayed the same. I've also treated quite a few who showed no overall improvement on standard measures of ADHD symptoms, but who improved academic performance. That can be true for many psych meds. Measured symptoms can improve, but that does not mean functioning in specific settings will improve. If A sometimes causes B, and A sometimes causes C, that does not necessarily mean that if A causes B, then A must cause C. That's basic science. Sundayclose (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying but I’m sorry to say it does not stand up to serious inspection.

The symptomatic management of ADHD includes improving executive functioning to reduce impairment. No impairment no disorder. The most impairing aspect of ADHD is often in academic performance.

If the medication is equally effective as methylphenidate in altering those symptoms, then it’s silly to assume academic performance has no correlation with it or little at best.

I see your point that there *may* not be research specifically reviewing that but the requirement for additional studies is needed not to validate if it occurs or not but to see the degree of improvement in comparison to other treatment interventions either as alternatives or supplementation.

Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов: Sorry, but you are seriously wrong. Again, you made a synthesized conclusion. If you want to address the impact of medication on academic performance, you need specific data on academic performance, and you don't have that. No offense, but you clearly have little or no experience in the real world regarding the effects of medication on academic performance. It seems to me that you have ignored the points I made above, and you certainly haven't refuted them. With respect, you need consensus to make such statements. And the consensus needs input from WP:Wikiproject Medicine. This issue is bigger than you and me, so discussion needs to be on the article talk page. Thanks for discussing instead of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for writing.

I see your point however you're not taking in account that most of the studies comparing the effects between ATX & MTH use academic performance as contributing factors in rating alteration in innattentive, hyperactive and impulsive symptoms - whether or not it is the main objective of the study.

The very fact that this is the case supports benefits in academic performance and the conclusion is not implied.

So once again, I wouldn't consider this a synthesised conclusion as I am utilising the available information specified in the studies, especially those reviewed by the meta-analysis.

Regarding real world experience, I'm well aware certain agents may not affect productivity/performance in academia however when it comes to ADHD the notion is generally unsupportable.

Then, again, my aim is not to synthesise conclusions at all and I stand by the fact that said research does use academia as a core factor in achieving their results.

Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You have added a WP:TECHNICAL tag to the Collatz conjecture article. Could you elaborate on what exactly you think is too technical about the article? Do you mean everything, including the lead? Did you understand what the problem is? If you have any specific suggestion for improvements, please leave your feedback in the talk page. -- Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

On the Stephen King page, you said the story has "nothing to do with repressed memory." It has everything to do with traumatic amnesia, since King describes it as a textbook case of traumatic amnesia in Danse Macabre, where the story originates. Moreover, he offered it as an explanation for what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he resented, a question he admits he used to "confabulate" about and a question to which he has offered other, simpler, explanations. Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is usually correct. And, as noted, traumatic amnesia is common enough in fiction (including King's fiction) but not real life.

The science on traumatic amnesia is clear: see again, Loftus, Elizabeth; Ketchum, Katherine, The Myth of Repressed Memory. 1994; and McNally, R. J., "The Science and Folklore of Traumatic Amnesia", Clinical Psychology, Harrison Pope, Mihcael P. Poliakoff, Michael B. Parker, Matthew Boynes and James B. Hudson, Is dissociative amnesia a culture-bound syndrome? Findings from a survey of historical literature, Physiological Medicine. You asked where King claimed to have recovered the memory; a non-sequitur, as those articles don't debunk recovered memory, they debunk repressed memory, which is what King described it as in Danse Macabre. The title of Loftus's article is "The Myth of Repressed Memory", not "The Myth of Recovered Memory". If the story were true, King would, almost certainly, recall it, as traumatic events are usually the ones we recall most clearly. He does not. So "he has no memory of the event" falsifies the story with high confidence. He would also, presumably, mention it in his memoir or in subsequent interviews. He does not.

When Terry Gross asked him about his childhood and how he became interested in horror, he replied, “I’ve been queried a lot about how I got interested in this stuff. And at some point, a lot of interviewers just turn into Dr. Freud and put me on the couch and say, ‘what was your childhood like?’ And I say various things, and I confabulate a little bit and just kind of dance around the question as best I can, but bottom line – my childhood was pretty ordinary, except that from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did.” (See Gross, Terry, Stephen King: ‘My Imagination Was Very Active — Even At A Young Age’ National Public Radio). (Gross doesn't ask him about the story, probably because she has a good bullshit detector.) That's consistent with what he says in the introduction to Night Shift (1978), where he says that most of us have at least some interest in horror and that, for most of us, this starts in childhood. It's consistent, too with what he's said in subsequent interviews. In Rolling Stone, when asked about his interest in horror, he says: "It's built in. That's all." That is, it's inherent; no need for an origin story. At this point, I shouldn't need to say that he makes no mention of the story. (See Greene, Andy. Stephen King: The Rolling Stone Interview. October 31, 2014.) It's established that King makes no mention of the story at all in his memoir, On Writing (2000). And, indeed, in that book he offers a simple explanation for why he writes horror: "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin, that's all. If you disapprove, I can only shrug my shoulders. It's what I have.” " (King, On Writing, 158). "I was built with a love of the night and the unquiet coffin"; which is to say it's part of human nature, or at least his nature. That's more parsimonious than the baroque tale told in Danse Macabre. If you I asked if you could find any interviews since then where King mentions the story. You could not.

I asked if you could find any examples of King mentioning the incident in recent interviews. You did not. Something can be inferred from that, especially when King admits he used to "confabulate" about what happened in his youth to make him write horror. In recent years when he has, presumably, stopped "confabulating", he has stopped telling the story.

One of the "reliable sources" you cited, Looper, doesn't seem very reliable at all. On their homepage, you'll find such articles as "Is Mr. Bean An Alien? A Very Wild And Believable Fan Theory Explained", "Star Wars: What Sebula Looks Like In Real Life", "What Sid From Toy Story Looks Like In Real Life" and "This Horrific Finding Nemo Fan Theory Changes Everything About Marlin". (The title of a film must be italicized, something they don't seem to have cottoned onto.) Not exactly The New York Times. It has, on the home page alone, several articles devoted to "nude scenes", for the reason, I suspect, that that generates clicks. Nor is the article you cited very good; it reads like clickbait, and the source they cite is Danse Macabre (a source which is unreliable, seeing how, not to beat a dead horse, King offers the story as an explanation for why he writes horror, a question he resented and which he admits he used to "confabulate" about.) The other source you cite is George Beahm's, The Stephen King Story. And who does Beahm cite? It's King in Danse Macabre, isn't it?

No need to belabor the obvious: since King told the story once in 1981 as an explanation of why he writes horror but not before or since; since the story is described as a case of traumatic amnesia, something common in enough in fiction (including King's fiction) but not real life; since King makes no mention of the story in his memoir or in subsequent interviews; since King has, before and since, offered other, simpler explanations of why he writes horror ("from a very young age, I wanted to be scared. I just did"); since there are no direct quotes from family members mentioning the story, and since he admits he used to "confabulate" when asked what happened in his youth to make him write horror, the story does not belong in the biography section, where it is damaging the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia.

Thanks, though, for turning me on to Looper. As Joe Gillis says of Norma Desmond's screenplay, "Sometimes it's interesting to see just how bad bad writing can be. This promised to go the limit." Looper goes beyond the limit. On their homepage alone, you'll find three articles in a row about nude scenes: Why Alison Brie's Full-Frontal Nude Scene In Somebody I Used To Know Is So Personal, How Eva Green Really Feels About Shooting Nude Scenes and The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes. Not quite as scholarly as Physiological Medicine. It reads more like Clickhole, The Onion's sister site which satirizes clickbait sites like Buzzfeed. But Looper makes Buzzfeed look like The New York Times. If you do a search for Looper on fact-checking sites like Media Bias/Fact Check, you'll get a null result, probably because they don't think it merits mention. It doesn't merit mention here, either. The story is damaging the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia; it should go without saying that the link to Looper damages the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia.

Charlie Faust (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's take a look at one of the "reliable sources" you cited, Looper. It doesn't seem very reliable at all. Since you think this is an example of a reliable source, I think it merits analysis.

Here's a random sample of a Looper article: "This Horrific Finding Nemo Fan Theory Changes Everything About Marlin". (The title of a film, like that of a novel or play, must be italicized, though the people at Looper haven't cottoned onto this.) That may be the least of their problems; their idea of a reliable source is "TikTok influencer @‌mndiaye_97. The hypothesis directly attacked one of the core elements that make "Finding Nemo" such a tear-jerker." (Again, the title of a film, in this case Finding Nemo, must be italicized.) As for the "hypothesis", they seem to have a tenuous grasp on the term: "In essence, the idea here is that a barracuda wouldn't eat a clownfish. However, female clownfish are bigger and stronger than males. They're also willing to devour their own young. What if Marlin's wife, Coral, ate the couple's entire family in one go, and Marlin was too weak to stop her? Following this much darker timeline, one could assume Marlin's barracuda story is just a devastated father in denial. He's made up the story to help him forget the fact that his wife cannibalized his own kids. Even worse, the influencer posits that his only surviving son is a made-up fiction Marlin created, naming him Nemo. The translation of that title from ancient Latin? 'Nobody.'"

Oh man, where to start? It's been a while since I've seen Finding Nemo but as I recall characters other than Marlin interact with Nemo, which would seem to rule out the possibility of his being a figment of Marlin's imagination. He is, you might say, the second star of the film, if not the first; he gets the movie named after him. As for "female clownfish are bigger and stronger than males", who cares? They don't talk, either. The filmmakers weren't going for scientific accuracy. "The translation of that title from ancient Latin? 'Nobody.'" Huh? What's "ancient Latin"? As opposed to what, modern Latin? As for why he's named Nemo, I'm guessing it's a reference to Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the Disney film adapted from Jules Verne's novel. Even if it's not, that's more parsimonious than whatever that Tiktok influencer dreamed up. Feel free to peruse Looper; maybe their article "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes" is better.

This is your idea of a reliable source? I will say that the Tiktok fantasy is about as plausible as positing that King writes horror because, as a child, he saw a friend hit by a train, an event he has no memory of and makes no mention of at all in his memoir or in subsequent interviews.

Either come up with a better source (better than Looper is, admittedly, a low bar) or I'm axing the story. Charlie Faust (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Previous discussions regarding Loopers reliability: here and here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Love this exchange: How "reliable" is entertainment news site Looper.com? Specifically for citing in the article Prisoners (1981 film). Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Charlie Faust (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

To quote the great Billy Wilder, "Sometimes it's interesting to see just how bad bad writing can be. This promised to go to limit." Looper goes beyond the limit. Charlie Faust (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Sunday, just so we're clear: you think Looper is a "reliable source"? The same source that gave us the above article, "This horrific Finding Nemo Fan Theory Changes Everything About Marlin"? Granted, the "theory" in the article is about as plausible as saying that King writes horror because he witnessed a friend being hit by a train, an event he has no memory of and makes no mention of in his memoir or any subsequent interviews. You could prove me wrong; maybe their article "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes" is a masterpiece. I doubt it. But you seem to maintain that Looper is reliable.

Man oh man, I have to disagree. I don't think Looper is reliable, not at all. Simonm223, asked about the reliability of Looper, responded: "Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan." I have to say I agree. Charlie Faust (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You write that "This material has been in the article for years".

So? A lot of stuff on Wikipedia is flat-out wrong. That's true of this page, actually; an earlier edition said that King sought treatment shortly after the publication of Cujo. Wrong, wrong, wrong; Cujo was published in 1981 and King didn't seek treatment until 1987, six years later. That matters because addiction provides the subtext for many books published after Cujo, notably Misery and The Tommyknockers (both 1987). As King told The Paris Review, Misery is a book about addiction; "Annie was my drug problem, and she was my number one fan. God, she never wanted to leave." He was in the throes of addiction while writing it. That doesn't make sense if, as the article used to say, he got treatment shortly after Cujo.

Saying "it's been in the article for years" may be an argument, but not a convincing one.

As for things on Wikipedia being wrong, where to start? An earlier edition of the page for John Williams said he was "heavily influenced by Richard Wagner". Passing strange, since he told Alex Ross in The New Yorker that he "really [doesn't] know Wagner's operas at all" and that if people hear Wagner in his music, "It's not because I put it there." (See Ross, Alex, "The Force is Still Strong With John Williams", The New Yorker.) And yet Williams's supposed debt to Wagner was there, in the header, no less. No reason for it to be there, when it can be falsified easily. And even if it had been there for years (it may have been, for all I know) that's no reason for it to be there. Saying "it's been in the article for years" sounds like an appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are useless.

Should go without saying that the link to Looper (noted by other editors as a "notorious clickbait website" that should make you "consider a malware scan") I'd like to know what you think is an unreliable source.

Charlie Faust (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You accuse me of being involved with an edit war, presumably because I removed the tale of the train. But I did not. Simonm223 (talk) did, correctly noting that it's a silly story that King himself has no faith in. Look at the history, and you'll see I didn't remove it. Apparently people on WP are in the habit of commenting on things they haven't read. Charlie Faust (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

When you posted on my page about the "edit war", you accused me of removing the story on 16:17, 14 March 2024‎. But if you look at the history, you'll find it was Simonm223 talk contribs‎, who duly notes that "The quote from danse macabre was being misrepresented. King refers to the idea that an event he doesn't remember and that may not have happened when he was four as specious and little better than astrology."

You say I should "discuss, not edit war" (that shouldn't be used as a verb, but whatever.) I have tried to reach consensus on the story. Were the tale true King would, presumably, have mentioned it before or since Danse Macabre. On the talk page, I asked if anyone could find any subsequent interviews where King mentions it. No dice. Were it true, it would, presumably, be mentioned by King's family members in print (in Danse Macabre, it's presented as a secondhand anecdote, something his mother may have told once.) On the talk page, I asked if anyone knew of any direct quotes from family members that mention it. No dice.

Simonm duly notes on the talk page that King himself seems to have little faith in the story, that he told it once at a convention when asked what happened in his youth to make him write horror. That is a question he has offered other, simpler explanations to, and about which he admits he used to "confabulate." The page used to tell us that it may have "psychologically inspired some of King's darker works" (whatever that means.) But how could it have "psychologically inspired" King if he has no memory of it? And, in Danse Macabre itself, King dismisses the notion as "totally specious" and "little better than astrology." Simonm is again correct that the one source that counts in the case dismisses the notion that it inspired him, "psychologically" or otherwise.

You say it is "sourced", but is it reliably sourced? Who does Beahm cite as a reference? It's King in Danse Macabre, isn't it? That's unreliable, seeing how, in that book, King offers it as an explanation of what happened in his youth to make him write horror, a question he resented and about which he admits he used to "confabulate." And, crucially, King has not told the tale before or since. Earlier, you said I shouldn't remove it because "it has been in the article for years". And? That sounds like an appeal to groupthink, surely a dubious ethos for an encyclopedia. And there are things on WP which are flat wrong, some of which have been there for years. On the King page, under Personal life, we were told his wife staged an intervention "shortly after Cujo was published." But that's wrong: Cujo was published in 1981 and King's wife staged an intervention after The Tommyknockers, in 1987. That may have been in the article for years; it should never have been there at all. WP encourages us to "be bold" in making edits. If you see something wrong, it's gotta go, even if it's been there for years. Something having been on WP for years is no reason for its being there, especially if it should never have been there at all.

But your accusation that I removed the story on 6:17, 14 March 2024‎ is false. I didn't do it. Simonm223 did, duly noting that it's a silly story that the teller told once and even then didn't seem to have much faith in.. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see I'm right about this, but people on WP are apparently in the habit of commenting on things they haven't read. Charlie Faust (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And, if I may say so, kudos to Simonm223 for removing the story, which they duly describe as "a silly story" which King told once and even then "had no faith in.":

With that being said this is entirely nothing if one actually reads the statement in Danse Macabre in context. King concludes the annecdote [sic] saying, "I believe this is a totally specious idea - such shoot-from-the-hip psychological judgments are little more than jumped up astrology."

Pursuant to this I will be removing the reference to the train from the article. It's something that the only reliable source treats as irrelevant. A silly story he told at a convention to play along that had no significance to him and that he held no faith in.

You'll find that on the talk page. If you read Danse Macabre, King says it's something his mother told him once but that he has no memory of, and calls the notion that it influenced him "totally specious" and "little better than astrology." And, tellingly, he has never told the tale before or since Danse Macabre.

Simmonm223 is doing G_d's work in ripping on Looper, the execrable clickbait site that was cited, saying "If you've visited, consider a malware scan." Another editor, Sergecross73 notes that "WP:VG/S lists Looper as unreliable. They've got a real clickbait/churnalism problem with their video game coverage at least. Unlikely it's relegated just to that content area." Maybe their articles on literature are better, but they don't seem to have many articles on literature, besides the King article linked to. Maybe there's something about literature in their article "The Most Disturbing Animated Nude Scenes", but I doubt it. Feel free to peruse it and let me know if you find anything of value but, as noted, consider a malware scan. Charlie Faust (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply