This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What exemption to WP:3RR are you asserting that your edits qualify under? —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It was my understanding that there was greater protection for maintaining status quo in BLPs. Rereading the policy you linked I see now it is only for the most of serious cases. My concern was primarily that this had anything to do with domestic abuse so should be thoroughly discussed before creating overly long, attention-getting headers. I see now that it was more an edge case than I would have liked and I should not have continued to revert. Apologies for the error and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cerebral726 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome! Thanks for marking it as needing correction. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of my comment regarding Daniel Craig ordering a drink
Please check up this again! In the bluray film at 1 h 14 m 20 s Daniel Craig orders a "Martini" (it wasn't named Vesper yet) and says two measures of Gordon. What you have heared on Youtube I don't know, but that is what is said on the bluray! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QV (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
1 April 2021 Cerebral726 talk contribs 9,530 bytes −85 Undid revision 1015395306 by QV (talk) I just looked up the scene on YouTube, and this is not correct. It is still uncited, but there won't be a source that confirms it since it is incorrect. undothank Tag: Undo
curprev 06:58, 1 April 2021 QV talk contribs m 9,615 bytes +85 Added information that Daniel Craig ordered Vesper with a different recipe in the movie Casino Royal 2006. undo Tag: Reverted
Please be more careful when adding to a talk page to not overwrite existing sections. This is the scene where he says 3 measures at 3:26. Please find a WP:RS and bring that to Talk:Vesper (cocktail) if you feel it is necessary. However, I do not think this is a productive use of time since it appears you are incorrect in your assertion, and since your original edit included substantial personal opinions on the balance of the drink.--Cerebral726 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Physics girl illness
Why do you removed this information? Please don't do that. She and her husband decided to share this. It is important information that affects her work.
Note that even under that link you added it clearly says:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...
And then some points of which all seem fine to me.
Similar private info, with similar source is about the marriage.
My concerns are that Wikipedia needs to be extremely careful with publishing medical information. Yes she has shared it, but having only a primary source for this kind of content on a biography of a living person makes me nervous, and needs to be handled with care. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Well that is her choice to share this. If she would share that once, sure you could have doubts, but she shared that multiple times with both photographs and films. The problem with sources would be if some other youtuber like e.g. Simone Giertz would share this information on her own instagram. That is not the case though. Nux (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of subject’s height on Drew Gooden (YouTuber)
Hello! I am a bit confused about when to include a person’s height on their corresponding Wikipedia page. I thought that the Personal life section was an appropriate place to add Gooden’s height, but you reverted my edit. Why was this? SaltieChips (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The most important issue was that your edit did not include a reliable source, which is especially critical when it comes to WP:BLP articles. Additionally, in general, height should only be added if it is particularly relevant (notably tall or short or they play a sport, etc.). Cerebral726 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the quick response. SaltieChips (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Green you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for picking it up, Mike Christie. Looking forward to the review! Cerebral726 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The article John Green you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Green for comments about the article, and Talk:John Green/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations on your GA! As we say in my hometown, DFTBA! — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
HA! Thanks so much, 🖖🖖 to you as well! Cerebral726 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I've moved my working draft into the mainspace as a referenced stub. Would be interested in your thoughts, particularly with regards to better formatting the references. KevinHallward's Ghost(Let's talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, flattering to ask for my help! I have made a pass at it, doing some copy edits, adding a couple of lightweight sources, etc. I am currently not entirely sure Hall passes WP:GNG, specifically "Significant coverage". Nothing has really gone in-depth about her life and her career, closest being the Variety article and it is fairly lightweight. You might want to see if there is any better sources out there, cause I wasn't really able to find it, and someone could easily nominate it for deletion without something more convincing. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH
Hello, please explain how the content you reinstated with this edit does not constitute WP:SYNTHesis of individual reviews. There is not a single source in the article body that supports this type of summary statement about individual aspects of the reception. The same applies to the themes mentioned in the lead. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Synth states you should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". The statements I reinstated do not draw a new conclusion from the sources from the body, they just repeat what the sources say in succession. If any of the specific themes or reception are not explicitly stated in the body, that could be removed. Feel free to start a discussion over at Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once if you would like to continue this discussion so others can weigh in as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they do. In fact, this type of unsourced summary statement is such an exemplary failure of WP:SYNTH that the following passage was recently added to MOS:FILM for clarification: Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources. Regarding themes, there is not a single source in the article body that suggests that the particular themes listed have been "widely discussed"; the same principle applies. WP:SUMMARY is not a SYNTH-carve-out. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
My reading of that is that policy is that editors should not make broad statements about how a film was received based off of their understanding of a few reviews, not that one can't make a list of themes based off of a few different sources discussing them. We are talking about a few different statements though, so it may be wise to try and improve each part one at a time so that it can be clearer where there are issues if they exist (just a little confused which aspect of the original content you believe is a misrepresentation of the film's critical reception, vs themes or genre, etc.). Regardless, the content itself is valuable and needed for the lead to be complete, so it would be better to try to rephrase it rather than to just remove. For example, if you have an issue with "widely discussed", then perhaps just "discussed" or "explored" would be adequately backed up by the source. Since you clearly feel the content needs to be improved, I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion, since I disagree that the content is so egregious that it needs to be immediately removed versus simply improved to avoid any explicit or borderline synth material. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the summary is a misrepresentation. It may or may not be. There is nothing to "improve". You need to either provide a source that explicitly supports a summary statement, or, if no such source exists, the passage needs to be removed. Whether the information is "valuable" or not is of course irrelevant to this discussion because value is not a standard for inclusion; verifiability is. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
To address your suggestion of starting a talk page discussion: this is not a consensus issue. You are evidently unfamiliar with exactly what synthesis means on Wikipedia. If I couldn't convince you with my response above, WP:NORN is the next-best forum. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I felt that the longstanding content had been fairly judged by a number of editors as acceptable and useful. If that isn't the case, and there is a problem with the content, then a simple discussion on the talk page among the involved editors can rectify any issue you may have with the content. I am obviously not saying a consensus on the talk page could override policy, just that there seems to be enough ambiguity to warrant a discussion. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
But that's where you're wrong. There is no ambiguity. The fact that you don't have a full enough grasp of policy to understand the issue does not make it ambiguous. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Alright. Since you feel so strongly, perhaps you can more selectively remove the statements that you found troublesome from the lead (I feel most strongly that the "swirl of genre anarchy" sentence is a strong part of the lead), and we can try to gain a consensus on the talk page on what sentences could be integrated to properly summarized the themes from the ground up, using sourcing? There isn't really a need for the strong levels of animosity, I am discussing in good faith to try to work with you to improve the article while keeping critical parts of the lead intact. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I do feel like, if not undue, the NYT quote is definitely weirdly out of place, but I don't feel as strongly about that. If sourcing remains as is, the following passage needs to be removed: [...] for its originality, screenplay, direction, acting (particularly of Yeoh, Hsu, Quan, and Curtis), visual effects, costume design, action sequences, musical score, and editing. Its portrayal of philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as its approach to themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity, have been widely analyzed. "Critical acclaim" is of course perfectly fine and supported by Metacritic. That sentence could be tied together with the box office gross, just like I did in my initial edit. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with removing the first sentence, with the possibility of building it back up with a source that analyzes what reviews have "particularly praised". In terms of the themes sentence, perhaps "The film explores philosophical concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism, as well as themes such as neurodivergence, depression, generational trauma, and Asian American identity." Each of those items are mentioned in a number of sources, often with each other. This rephrasing allows it to act as a faithful summary of the sources, vs the first sentence which I agree picks and chooses. Thoughts? Cerebral726 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
As with the critical reception, there would need to be a source that explicitly lists these themes in summary. It would also need to explicitly mention that the film "explores" these themes (or anything synonymous with that). The article body features a bunch of individual analyses, but no summary statement as far as I can tell. If you can name such a source, I'm open to include a summary statement of themes in the lead. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Starting a talk page discussion, as I may not have time to fully address this issue due to my schedule, and it's worth having multiple voices on your valid concerns. --Cerebral726 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
On 8 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Green, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that author John Green fundraises for Partners In Health by selling shirts with an image of his mustachioed face called "Pizza John"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Green. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Green), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numberphile until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:John Green for comments about the article, and Talk:John Green/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Pierre Ferrand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13 § Pierre Ferrand until a consensus is reached. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)