User talk:Escape Orbit

Escape Orbit

Please leave messages on my talk page.

I am human, so sometimes I make mistakes. If you have come here to complain about something I have done, please do not take it personally. Explain where you think I've gone wrong and I will happily explain what I was thinking when I did it. With your help I can rectify any errors I may have made. Thanks.

Dispute resolution needed in Talk:Health care in the United States

The discussion regarding an issue on article neutrality is currently occurring in: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Waddington

Information was sourced from obituary in Daily Telegraph (UK) 02/12/2015 Leslie Waddington, art dealer - obituary Art dealer who promoted Modern and contemporary works and foiled a cunning forgery racket — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.49.152 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Cited to obituary. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Hayes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI on User talk page removals

Just an FYI, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, there are only a couple of things that they can't remove, such as declined ublock requests. See WP:BLANKING. Monty₈₄₅ 20:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Didn't realised he'd been blocked so thought it was the editor covering their tracks while continuing to vandalise. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Deny

No I don't have any time for this guy at all what so ever. Oh and here's a little something for the holidays. You like pie don't you? SlightSmile 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Emmerdale template

Hi. Sorry you think that I disrupt Emmerdale teplate. That is not at all what I'm doing. Don't get me wrong, episode counts are great, but people also need to know when the episode was aired. So please do not cause anymore problems. If you have any questions, contact me on my talk page.79.138.132.8 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you are blocked now. I warned you that repeatedly reverting other editors and misusing the infobox fields would get you blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Hello, Escape Orbit. When a country bears the name of the royal family to express the view that it is its personal possession, when its ruler cumulates the executive, legislative and judiciary powers and when all aspects of life, in the public and private spheres, are governed by an all encompassing official ideology, what should we call its system of government? The sources I gave do not specifically use "internationally", but I could provide quotes from almost any country on earth. The term is (rightly) used in the article on North Korea: "The DPRK officially describes itself as a self-reliant socialist state and holds elections. Internationally, however, it is considered a totalitarian dictatorship." If you don't like "internationally", we could replace by "almost universally". Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much of a problem with the description "totalitarian dictatorship", providing it is well sourced. We must recognise, however, that these are emotive terms and primarily a matter of opinion (whether a majority opinion or otherwise). The specific problem with "internationally considered" is it is too vague. Is that internationally by other nations, governments, people or organisations? What of those nations, governments, people or organisations who don't think this? (There must be some.) Is their consideration "international" too?

So I think it's better if we make clear that this is the view of critics and follow it up with sourced facts that might justify that opinion. What would be good is if there was some sort of authority saying this, rather that a journalist, so that the claim could be well attributable to a particular organisation that the reader may recognise. Is there any? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but "critics" seems too restrictive to me. We should not give the impression that we are condoning the human rights abuses. As a compromise, I replaced the formulation with "is widely regarded". I hope that you will agree. Cheers. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is much worse. "is widely regarded" is a classic weasel phrase. And the cites don't actually support that claim. I don't think that saying "critics" is condoning anything. It doesn't suggest that Wikipedia is taking any stance, either with or against the critics, and the critics can be the majority. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dictatorship is a form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. That Saudi Arabia fits both these definitions is beyond dispute. There is no need to be a critic of Saudi Arabia to recognise it. The Saudis themselves do not deny that the king wields absolute power and that the sharia rules all aspects of life in the private as in the public spheres. The phrase "is widely regarded" conveys the idea that Saudi Arabia is widely regarded as a dictatorship, like North Korea is. If you can find a source that describes Saudi Arabia as a democracy, please, let me know. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. These are your definitions and your decision that "Saudi Arabia fits both these definitions". That's Original Research. If you want to say "everyone thinks that Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian dictatorship" then you need a source that says exactly that. If you want to call it a totalitarian dictatorship then you need a source that says exactly that. You already have a source for the second of these statements. Your problem is that you want to extrapolate it into being the first statement without anything further.

Please understand I'm not trying to have this description removed. I believe it to be a common enough mainstream view among good sources to be included. It's just the choice of phrasing that's important. It is not a universal opinion, and as an opinion we should try to best attribute it. The reader can then decide whose opinion to trust. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. You want to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible, and you are right. However, if we don't want to write that Saudi Arabia is internationally regarded as a dictatorship, neither should we write that "The DPRK officially describes itself as a self-reliant socialist state and holds elections.[11] Internationally, however, it is considered a totalitarian dictatorship." Therefore, with some chagrin, I will remove "internationally" from the article North Korea. Mitochondrial Eve (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For explaining well on my talk page why you have made the changes on Lanzarote page and for proposing to include additional information on the page.

HardstyleGB (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For correcting the spelling of DJ Bob's last name on "Heart of Glass." Caden cool 23:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just when I was getting a bit of a thirst. Thanks! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Silva Entertainment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Morrison and Dev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Snarky Puppy's notability

Hi, noticed you made this edit to Snarky Puppy. While I generally agree with your reasoning, I also noticed that the lead of the article doesn't state why the band is notable. Referring to their Grammy-winning album is perhaps a straightforward way to do so. I couldn't figure out a way to work it in at the moment, but if you do, please do add it. Might stop by the article later and give it another go. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Orange

Is that feckin' true? All this stems from one editor who has been pushing it on and off wiki for nearly a decade? Really, that's a bit scary, not being judgmental or personal but, well, like, unbelievable. Murry1975 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying it all stems from the one guy, just that most of the sources produced by people usually lead back to him. It's perfectly ok for him (he's an active Wikipedian) to campaign for what he sees as a fun idea. But Wikipedia should only be giving it a mention if/when it catches on. I'm sceptical it has and we need sources that don't involve him. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia article

Hi. So, I gather that we do not use internal references (what you call links) for animal and plant life specific to various national geographies on Wikipedia? Or is the linking determined by some type of personal criteria that you may have for when it is appropriate versus when it is not? Some of these plants and animals I was not familiar with, so from my perspective it is much easier to click on a link than to have retype the entire word, which for many people would discourage them from further pursuit of that information. But then maybe you enjoy retyping... I don't see any instance or anywhere in Wikipedia that establishes a criteria or specifies that this action would constitute overlinking. Is this just a subjective opinion or gut feeling or do you actually have a reason? How do you determine which animal or plant should get an internal link in Wikipedia and which plant or animal should not? And my second primary question is are you going to fix the internal references that were previously done incompletely or erroneously in the paragraph that you reverted? Thirdly, it seems to me based on your personal criteria, that you should clean up the first 3 paragraphs of the article, since they are heavily overlinked (using similar criteria that you have established) relative to other sections of the article including the Geography section where I added the internal references. Granted several of the references may be too general to necessitate an internal reference (such as shrub), but it seems very arbitrary and subjective indeed to revert the entire edit...Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. I don't know if you saw it, but I left comments on my Talk Page in response to your post on my Talk Page, since that is how we have been communicating... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. Out of consideration to and to accommodate your concerns and objections to what you regarded as overlinking in this section is why I added the specificity to the links that I did... By adding some specific anecdotes that elucidate the uniqueness of the wildlife (which as you pointed out initially was probably not characterized by the generic wildlife (and their terms) that was for the most part initially referenced in the article) I wanted to highlight the potential unusualness without detailing all of the wildlife uniqueness that is endemic to an environment as different as the Arabian Peninsula... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	you have made a really wonderful excellent userpage wiki tamil 100 13:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pilates#Which_Content_will_be_taken_down_from_the_Pilates_Wiki_Page

Hi Escape_Orbit, Just answering your points:

No one owns Wikipedia's content, please know I am absolutely aware of this and in agreement with you. My purpose is not telling people what to write, but trying to leave some guidelines that could be helpful to those thinking on just doing an edit because THEY don't agree or because THEY want to manipulate the topic, in this case Pilates, posting things that actually are unrelated to what we do in Pilates. It takes a lot of time to keep an eye on this specific article, and if there were not because of people like me who has tried to clean the nonsense edits of many people year after year, we would have a highly absurd document in Wikipedia serving the purposes of companies and not really providing an insight of the art and workout Pilates is. Unfortunately I have been away for little less than a year and today I found this unfortunate edits.

I do not require (and I don't have the authority to require) anyone to have specific qualifications to edit the Pilates wiki page, but I expect that whatever is posted is related to the topic that occupies us, and not to other disciplines, or adding sections of what Pilates doesn't do according to one study. If we allow this then we should allow all references to all medical studies from all over the world in Pilates. They should create a specific wiki page for these studies, perhaps. These articles are perfect for medical publications but in Pilates can only harm and mislead those who visit the page searching for insights and facts on what we do in Pilates. It is telling the story, the views and the finding of people that are not in Pilates really, and what Pilates practitioners should or should not do or expect. It is outrageous.

Regarding Links: I rectified one of the links because the old one was permanently down and does not link to the legal document explaining the law suit from 2000 anymore. So I found a pdf of the document (court ruling) and replaced the link with it. However, your reversion has destroyed these fixes. Regarding PMA: no company or organisation should be allowed to piggy-back on information provided on the Pilates wiki page, to advertise their certification underhand, in the same article. There are so many organisations certifying and regulating their own beliefs in Pilates, that the advice given by one of the moderators 2 years ago seemed most sensible: "we should then try to keep edits clean of additional information linking some individuals or organisations that could create unrest to others, or telling what is going on in just one country, but try to be more neutral without leaning onto anyone's business or specific vision; in other words to remain un-biased". What PMA, or someone using PMA, tried to do back in 2013 (and again a few months ago, which I am trying to clean from the wiki page) in the same "Legal" section and other sections within the article, was precisely passing their Pilates beliefs underhand. Not just me, but other editors spotted this wrong-doing and reverted some edits back then. Someone shamelessly even went to the stretch of creating a section "Education" so they can advertise and link all their certification programs. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

A couple of years ago, the section "Precautions" was added to provide the reader with the reassurance that in Pilates we have protocols on safety that do not obey to medical sciences, but were developed by decades of practicing within Pilates itself. Every year we have people that with malice post on and on (and take down the source content that say otherwise, just because they can) the "dangers" and "failures" of Pilates, according to them and any scientific study saying so. The Pilates page is not a page for posting scientific research! This is vandalisation of the work previous editors have put in place to reference the work of Mr Pilates, his method through history, and the work current professional do around the world in the Pilates work out room or studio, not in a laboratory! If we were not to edit these excesses, we will end up with a Pilates Wikipedia page full of scientific studies telling you rubbish about Pilates. This is not possible, and it is not the purpose of the article. That is my point here: To stop people from regularly adding medical knowledge into our Pilates wiki page, that no Pilates teacher learns about and practice, because is not part of Pilates and what they do. If we accept this then the Pilates teachers will be renouncing to the knowledge and the responsibility entrusted to them, and the readers will be digesting which is not shared by Pilates practitioners and professionals. It would be as wrong as if we start posting Pilates knowledge, in cross-training pages and in medical and physiotherapy pages in Wikipedia, telling them that what they do is not really effective and that we have daily proof through the testimony of people working out in Pilates! Keeping freedom of speech and an open society in Wikipedia also comes with understanding where are the boundaries within which I can contribute responsibly to an article. Unfortunately, the same person that added the "Effectiveness" section took down at the same time the "Precautions", because it was not compatible with what they were trying to say. Now, that is manipulation and biased approach! I am trying to rectify these abuses and I need your cooperation and understanding.

Thanks!

CF

HELP

I am doing a project for school and need to make three corrections to a wikipedia page. I have already made my prezi for the topic of eyebrows. Would you allow me to edit this page on Monday from 12:50 until 1400 so I can present my project? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.90.13 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm so on! --violetnese 23:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not until tomorrow! I think I'm Exhaustion, not that! --174.109.202.56 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Elmer Fudd

Yes that was right! --violetnese 23:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Escape Orbit, could you please explain why our page is being deleted? and did you sign off (UTC) for us, if so, legend! However our page does need to stay for us to keep that view of you, thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaskFC (talk • contribs)

regarding Dynamo edit

Hello sir the reference that was posted in wiki about dynamo father earlier was controversial but the one that i provided was more accurate and was taken on a personal interview with him. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshrind (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

further explanation

Hello orbit I know him more than the articles, more than the interviews they say they took personally from him. Because he is my step brother. Im from Pakistan belonging to Baloch family and his real father is my own father. although he is my step brother but my father told us about him and his mother each and everything. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshrind (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

related to dynamo

well i wanted to make things clear because thousands of people read wiki for information. Didnt want them to read wrong infos. we are not talking to each other due to our family matters with my father n his mother if you know about it. but anyways thanks for your help if you want to let those infos public then its in your own power to do so. I just wanted to help and I guess my help is not needed so I will let things as they are. Take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshrind (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of Your Edits

Hi Escape Orbit,

I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you deleted many references I made, leaving sentences and quotes without citations. This has occurred on pages such as "Girolamo Zanchi" and "Johannes Althusius." You also deleted some sentences I wrote without any justification. If you had followed the references I made to the cited texts, you would have found that the sources I cite verify the information they are attached to. Some of your other edits are reasonable and worthwhile, but I respectfully request that you stop systematically deleting the information I post. In doing so, I think you are doing a disservice to the wiki-community, in addition to wasting my time.

Thank you, Uncontroversialusername — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncontroversialusername (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wallace and Ladmo Show (reversion)

Hello. You reverted my addition of an official site to the 'External links' section of The Wallace and Ladmo Show. In addition to being "official", it is included on the related Bill Thompson (television host) article. Note also, that the site does not have advertisements. Readers interested in the article's subject will find the link informative. I have no involvement in either the website nor the subject, (but am a Phoenix native and follower of local culture). The website in question: WallaceWatchers.com

--Thank you for your attention; please reconsider your reversion of this addition that I believe to be helpful. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D0C4:DF9D:2B6A:49F5 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1983 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menudo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Erdington & the Moody Blues

Technically, Erdington was absorbed into the City of Birmingham in 1911, and I don't think the Moody Blues go back that far ! RGCorris (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But the article isn't talking about the City of Birmingham, it's talking about Erdington which was part of Warwickshire until 1974. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

From 1911, Erdington was a part of the City of Birmingham, and ratepayers would have paid their taxes to Birmingham, not to Warwickshire; likewise the postal address would have been Erdington, Birmingham, not Erdington, Warwickshire from that date. By contrast, the nearby Sutton Coldfield was a part of Warwickshire until 1974, when it was also absorbed into the City of Birmingham. By your argument, other parts of Birmingham that were once in other counties and absorbed in 1911, such as Handsworth (formerly Staffordshire) or Yardley (formerly Worcestershire) would have retained their former county addresses until 1974, and that was not the case. RGCorris (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an argument, I'm just going by what was originally there and what other parts of Wikipedia say. In practice, probably both addresses were practised and recognised. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Hey there Escape! Was just trying to add the USPTO Patent links for Beauchamp/Rick & Kauffman on a few sections - I might have just un-done your addition, sign on and take a look - make sure it's still there! If I messed yours up, just send me a virtual slap on back of head ;)

Cheers! Guitar player yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarhistory (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

諶/谌

諶/諶 is usually pronounced as chén but it is pronounced as shèn if and only if used as a surname. The surname has thousands of years of history. http://www.zdic.net/z/24/js/8C0C.htm https://www.zhihu.com/question/20263532 The mispronunciation has been quite a disturbance to people of surname 諶 including 諶龍 when he was growing up. And then 諶龍's badmintom coach, like most people, didn't know that and registered his name as chen. He got so tired with correcting other people so he didn't want to deal with it anymore. Slovebz (Talk) 201608200301 (UTC)

Tennis playing styles

Dear whom it may concern,

Recently, I have been writing playing styles for tennis players such as Roberto Bautista Agut, Marin Cilic and David Goffin. Then they've been removed because they didn't cite a source. I don't know if you're aware of this but many playing styles of tennis players don't cite a source. May I kindly suggest that you reinstate them in their respective pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.1.147 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But just because some articles have unsourced original analysis is not a reason for allowing it on other articles. Feel free to re-add what I removed if you can cite it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Information

Just wanted to say thank you for explaining rather than just deleting my input. I will one day get my head around this and sail wonderfully into the Wikipedia sunset 🌇 Jamiewazere (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher–Blair consensus

Hi Escape Orbit. Just wanted to inform you that the discussion at Talk:Thatcher–Blair consensus has just been closed. Given that you suggested nominating for Afd before anybody else, I think it would be best if you were the one who had it nominated. I was waiting for Tirailleur to comment, but he has been inactive for a few weeks now. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 22:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'll give it a few more days, see if there is any movement towards the article becoming what it might possibly could be. Otherwise I'll AFD it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith Moon-Zak Starkey Source Dispute

Hello, I have added a source as per your request, references 161 and 162 on the Keith Moon page. I have also emailed Zildjian requesting they change their incorrect info re: Starkey joining The Who in 1994 (correct date is 1996). That said...was there any effort to verify the Zildjian info that I twice insisted was wrong? I understand I should've sourced my claim, but did anyone check the original source for accuracy (i.e. find another source verifying there was even a Who tour in 1994)?