Archives (Index)

2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi. I think it is deceptive, regardless of how some misinformed journos have referred to her.

The accepted form is Sir/Dame [given name] [surname]. When addressing such a person, it's "Sir John" or "Dame Mary". Never "Sir P J" or "Dame A S". She had a legal name (Antonia Susan Duffy), to which the honorific "Dame" was attached. She had always written as plain "A. S. Byatt", and that did not change. Her legal name and her pen-name are different things.

Imagine if J K Rowling were made a dame: She would still be writing as plain "J. K. Rowling" or plain "Robert Galbraith", but her legal name would now be "Dame Joanne Rowling". Not "Dame J K Rowling", and certainly not "Dame Robert Galbraith". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I just want to stop by and tell you about the article improvements to the Apple TV+ series, Jane. I extended the page, by providing more description to the characters. VictorRocks (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rusted AutoParts. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Best Served Cold (film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rusted AutoParts. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hisao Shirai, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rusted AutoParts. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Attack on Titan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just move draft to Nuremberg (2024 film) by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Rusted AutoParts! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I unhappily accept your deletion of my entry for Daniel Ruminski on Deaths in July 2023. If Wanted pages ("redlinks") are not acceptable on such a page, the instructions should say so. I checked the instructions before editing. Deaths in 2024 currently has 17 such links. I take great care to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines, and in 10 years I have never before had an edit reverted. I take the responsibility of contributing to Wikipedia very seriously, so my edits are rare and restrained, limited to occasions when I am highly confident that the change is accurate, beneficial and technically well-crafted. Your deletion has shown me that even when I meet that high bar (WP:BIO, WP:REDYES), my effort can be thrown away without a word. I won't try to contribute this type of information in future. Christopher Ursich (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hello, Christopher Ursich,

It's been a long time since I did any worth on the "Deaths" lists but my recollection is that red links are allowed for deaths in the current month, which is January 2024, which gives interested editors time to create at least a stub article, but when the month is archived and we move on to the next month, those entries that are still red links are removed. RAP does more work there so maybe they can confirm whether or not this is still the guideline for these pages.

As for reverts, eh, that's part of editing here. I'm astonished that in 10 years you have never been reverted! It's just part of the collaboration that goes on here and I wouldn't take it personally. It's just an invitation to come here and pose your question which I hope RAP answers. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rusted AutoParts. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hisao Shirai".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no beef against note sections, only when there's nothing actually interesting to fill in.

Wanna say the project is being filmed or that is in post-production? There's the key table and the dagger† to indicate the "film have not yet been released yet".

You don't need an entire note section just to write that in the end. What's worse is that you keep them even after a movie is released.

So what's the point of keeping them? Put something redundant like "1st collaboration with..." in and keep the rest blank?

You don't let me remove the note sections, but also don't let me add something so it could fill in the note sections. What's funny is that you don't add note sections to any other table except for the feature films. There are tables for short films, documentaries and TV movies that never had any thing relevant to need a note section to fill in, and yet, you keep putting note sections only in feature films, even when some of them have nothing to fill in.

I know it's not IMDb, but it doesn't mean it cannot be a short version of it.

That's why I remove the notes section when they are not actually needed, just the title and the director involved can be enough. It's simple and straight-forward, without feeling like a filler.

I don't know if you're gonna report about me to get me blocked again, but if you don't, I appreciate. I just want you to understand my point of view. You have tons of of pages with filmography that never needed note sections.

I'm not trying to vandalize or anything, I just eliminate what I consider the excessive. Just like when you see credits tables like these:

Doesn't it make you wanna remove the part that only says {no}? Because that's what I feel when I see a note section and I have nothing interesting to add.

You can think whatever you want about me. That I'm nipicking, or that I am obsessed with editing, that I have OCD, but never think of my edits as acts of vandalism.

PS: Can you create pages for the following cinematographers?

• Aaron Morton
• Checco Varese
• Jeff Cutter
• James McMillan
• Marc Spicer
• Galo Olivares
• Lyle Vincent
• Lyn Moncrief
• Frank G. DeMarco
• Michael Simmonds
• Stefan Duscio
• Ben Nott
• Benjamin Loeb
• Jules O'Loughlin
• Brett Jutkiewicz
• Matt Flannery
• Sam McCurdy
• Tim Maurice-Jones
• Matthew J. Lloyd
• Sharone Meir

They also deserve recognition. Thank you

18:08, January 15th, 2024

Your recent reversion on Deaths in 2024 seems to have missed my point. It's not that I don't think Gary Graham went into and remains in cardiac arrest, just that it happens to everyone ever said to have died. If it doesn't, nobody says they're dead. Useless information to anyone looking for a cause of death, because it doesn't eliminate any possibilities or suggest one over another. I suggest you restore the version where it goes without saying, but if you don't want to, that's also fine! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. Commercial websites (such as for a funeral home) are generally not reliable sources for anything except themselves. They are examples of self-published sources per WP:USESPS: Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including [...] Business, charitable, and personal websites [...] Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(refactored from User talk:Sangdeboeuf) I would accept that rationale if the source was just about the funeral home itself. It's not. It's advertising the passing of a person that pertains to the subject in question with information that was presently missing. I have never encountered any umbrage raised over funeral home obituaries being utilized as citation for information on Wikipedia before, and personally I do not see how funeral home obituaries fall under the banner of self publishing. The obituary is not pitching their services, and it's not asserting a point of view on an opinion. It's a public announcement via family of a person's death. Rusted AutoParts 07:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's published by the funeral home itself. Hence it's self-published. It would be usable only if it were about the business itself. See WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people (in this case it applies to recently deceased people as well). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Sorry, but how can you tack on "it also applies to the deceased" when that's not specified in SPS? The entire purpose of an obituary is to make public the news of someone's death, I find it rather absurd to refuse the ability to use obituaries on the basis it is hosted by the funeral home's website, especially when the rationale "businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view" is not being communicated in the obituary. No promotions, no POV pushing, just announcement of a passing. This effectively makes citing passings of people that would be initially missing in a first report more difficult to cite if follow-up info that doesn't get reported on is in an obituary that we can't apparently use. Rusted AutoParts 07:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLP applies to recently deceased persons. Businesses have commercial motives whether they are explicit or not. However, the main reason to avoid self-published sources is their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:USESPS: One characteristic of self-published material is lack of reviewers who are independent of the author. Beyond that, the obituary doesn't even mention the subject of the article, who is the actress Jesse Jane. So this entire argument is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was utilized because she died alongside her boyfriend, the man whose obituary this is. Since it was citing the 24th as the DOD, it seemed to stand to reason this would apply to Jane as well, given them dying together and all. As for fact checking and accuracy…how does this apply to an obituary? They aren’t just pushing out random details, obituaries are published in accordance and cooperation with the family or estate of the person in question. Rusted AutoParts 08:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contents of Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, meaning there has to be a reliable, published source that directly supports the material in question. "It stands to reason" is insufficient and WP:OR, especially for BLPs. It doesn't matter if the funeral home is acting in accordance with the family, the Pope, or Santa Claus himself. We can't just take some random company's word as gospel. If anything, the family would have their own interests to promote here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That feels very badfaithed? "the family would have their own interests to promote here", they're announcing the death of a family member, I'm not seeing the self promotion being made here. They aren't advertising their businesses or their personal services, they're announcing they lost a loved one. "We can't just take some random company's word as gospel" is equally badfaithed. A standard that is appropriately applied to the likes of charities or commercial businesses shouldn't be getting applied to a death notice, regardless if said death is being posted via the funeral home the family chose. The funeral home's services were already solicited to the family, so they aren't utilizing a death notice as further promotion. Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your accusations of bad faith are unfounded and unwarranted. In this case, the obituary doesn't mention the circumstances of the death being a drug overdose precisely because they want to portray the deceased in the best light possible. Our mission, by contrast, is to summarize knowledge about a subject that has been accepted by reliable, independent sources as true and relevant. Families of deceased persons always have a conflict of interest when it comes to portraying the subject accurately and fairly. That's the problem here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obituaries rarely if ever include how the person died anyway, natural or otherwise, so that isn’t an acceptable counter in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]