User talk:Speakfor23

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Killing of Larry Payne, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Justice Department article and PBS article are most certainly reliable. I am under the impression you don't want to accept them as fact. [1][2]Speakfor23 (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Eric Cartman. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is based from a comparison between the two characters. I referenced things Cartman did in previous South Park episodes.Speakfor23 (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sean Combs

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sean Combs, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Sean Combs

Hello Speakfor23. Almost all of the legal issues you added were already covered elsewhere in the article. There's no need to cover the same ground again in a "legal issues" section. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Polo G, you may be blocked from editing. Patient Zero^talk 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to ASAP Rocky. Patient Zero^talk 23:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like information about their arrests and trial, but the fact is they are reliable sourced encyclopedic facts. Referring to the information as "vandalism" isn't at all helpful.Speakfor23 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were politely warned above by Diannaa to stop giving undue weight to certain legal issues, yet you have continued to do so. It has nothing to do with me "disliking" the information (and, given that some of the edits you've made are about alleged incidents, they're not really "facts" in the eyes of the law, as they could be found to not be guilty). Patient Zero^talk 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping yourself.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The page which you recently edited and which comes under this rule is Susan Sarandon. Burrobert (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Rubiales affair

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rubiales affair, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Albert Luque

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Albert Luque, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Speakfor23! Your additions to Operation Condor have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit also appears to be a copyvio of this CBS source. @Diannaa: can you do something about that? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit also appears to be a copyvio from this CBS source. User seems to be adding copyvio to contentious topics. I'll leave it to your discretion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making sense. CBS News is among the reliable sources in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That edit I made about the Students for Trump founder's arrest also has nothing to do with Operation Condor. I have also erased that typo you brought up. It was a simple typo. CBS News Boston also wasn't included in my recent Marilyn Manson edit. Please don't lie about how I do my editing.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a reliable source, but if you copy what they've written it's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Young Thug

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Young Thug, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Von Miller

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Von Miller, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please don't think switching from an IP to a named account fools anyone. Suggested reading WP:BRD. W C M_email 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try on that "don't think you're fooling anyone" claim. I never did try to fool anyone so don't make the argument I did. Wikipedia signs you out if you forget to click on the "sign me in for a year" tab. I'm not making the edits now, so don't go further.Speakfor23 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Marine Le Pen

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Marine Le Pen, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina's First Lady

I didn't know Karina was actually the First Lady. In my edit I put her as a quick placeholder for people to fill with the correct information. M4rtin238 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood

CS1 error on National Rally

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page National Rally, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dolly Parton

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dolly Parton, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dani Alves

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dani Alves, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

It is not a good look to, rather than read an article to find where information already is, insist you have your way until you are shown where. I have pointed you in the right direction, but even just Ctrl+F keywords is an option that is much less hostile towards fellow editors.

Furthermore, and as I have seen you have already been warned about several times here, you really need to understand due weight. Both in terms of when it is appropriate to create an independent section for something, and what kind of 'extracurricular' elements are appropriate in a footballer BLP career section.

Specifically, adding a new paragraph to a career section to say (effectively) "it was reported that someone else behaved inappropriately towards them", particularly when the revelations have not gone further than existing and the brief media reaction was just 'this has been said', is far too much prominence. And there would be reason to discuss if it should go in a public image section or similar since it's not affected their careers, if it is significant enough to include in the first place. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you clearly want to be a productive editor. But you seem to have a recurring problem with wanting to document every new element of legal issues in a way that Wikipedia does not consider encyclopedic coverage. If you slow down and learn, I'm sure you can do well. I've had to do it, every editor has. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time the user has done this. See here, where the user added content already incorporated in another section. User then reverted with a bad-faith accusation, before self-reverting. Also this, re-adding content already included elsewhere in that article. Seems to me the user is adding potentially problematic content to BLPs, some of which could be described as copyvio (see above). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't invoke the Operation Condor edits or my Marilyn Manson page edits you didn't like. You were not showing a NPOV in the way you erased those sexual assault-related edits to BLP articles like Manson and Russell Brand, as you also erased reliable information. It is enlightening to include Manson settled a lawsuit before his civil trial, as it raises more questions as to the abuse allegations; for example, he now doesn't have to potentially damaging court proceedings where people testify under oath. Brand's interview with Saville was also enlightening, but you erased that information when you invoking shorter sentences in the section related to Saville's unrelated sex abuse conviction; Saville's case may not be related to Brand, but his interview is. Manson and Brand have talent, but this an encyclopedia and not a celebrity fan page. I also corrected those mistakes and asked you in the edit summary why you erased some more relevant information when you did wide reverting? I still want answer to that question.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't "invoke" any of your edits to Operation Condor, but see now that you've also been problematic on that page too (copyvio). This is not about you creating edits that I "didn't like", but about you rushing to an article and adding content, despite that content already being on the article. Remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, NOT NEWS. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you did invoke the Marilyn Manson and Russell Brand you didn't like. You erased information about his Savile interview. That wasn't related to Savile's sex abuse case though. This is not a celebrity fanpage. Please also read the WP:NOTNEWS article better too. I sure didn't include "routine news."Speakfor23 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you creating edits that I "didn't like" is not the issue: you were adding duplicate information without bothering to check if the same information was already included in the article. Add more bad-faith accusations that I will not respond to. I really don't know what you think you're doing, but your overall attitude and demeanor now strikes me as someone who is WP:NOTHERE. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I not intimidated by your claims. You are also not mentioning how you erased the Savile interview that Brand took part in under the excuse that Savile's sex abuse case was included in the article and also briefly erased the People Magazine source I added that was not "already included in the article." Your claim of me having an "overall attitude" doesn't affect me. You erased reliable edits to the Marilyn Manson and Russell Brand pages. I also told you not to mention the Operation Condor. Now I mention that it was only one sentence that erased for the copyvio claim. I am trying to contribute to building an encyclopedia and didn't even come to your talk page, so please don't invoke WP:NOTHERE. It makes me think that you are WP:NOTHERE when you erase the good edits and come to my talk page to make accusations against me.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not "erase" any information from Russell Brand or Marilyn Manson. The only details I removed from the Brand article were details of Saville's life and criminal activity that are irrelevant to Brand's WP:BLP. The only details I removed from the Manson article were details you added that – for the third time – were already included elsewhere in the article. It should also be noted that you followed me to both articles following my revert of your edit to Jonathan Majors, where you again added details sourced to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. That you are so argumentative and defensive when multiple people have said you are clearly in the wrong is not indicative of a user who is genuinely here to build the encyclopedia. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]