User talk:Augmented Seventh

Image licensed

Hello, I just want to contact you since I encountered an issue regarding Katara's image. A user replaced it with one that is not under fair use, and the user argued that the image they uploaded is acceptable since it is licensed. From my perspective, it is not, because other fictional character articles use images that are only permitted under fair use. See, here. I just wanna to pinging you about this. Also the user request a CSD F7 that she/he believed that this image is permitted since the licensed he putted is under a free license and I've confident that this image is better to use since didn't have a issues especially it is licensed under fair use. Thanks AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 23:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Augmented Seventh 🎱 01:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to stop reverting real info in the Numtums wiki. ARshire8 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of edit

I am sorry if I overstepp with reverting. However I would kindly ask you to answer to my questions I made in [1]. The only reason I made the last revert is because I wanted to leave a message in description of change I want someone to answer on the Talk page to my questions and uncertain thoughts I had. I want to achieve consensus, but none was disputing my stance when I made my last Talk, none answered to any point I made. I didn't know how to understand - how there can be consensus, when there is no discussion to begin with? I read the previous discussion on topic, but none was proposing there what I have proposed lately, so I would want to know your (counter)arguments to my propossed solution. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia accurate.

Without a birth and death certificate mentioned in reliable sources, there isn't anything to parse.

Have a Wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh 🎱 18:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to understand but... many people on wikipedia do not have recorded birth date let alone birth certificate. Reliable sources do mention Tate having unborn son. Does wikipedia need access to all people private documents to recognize their existance? While I understand his legal status - as he was child who died before birth - is ambiguous, note could be used to voice this ambiguity. I just try to understand consistency of wikipedia there. Most celebrities have their children number in infoboxes, but I do not think they share their birth or death certificates. Is this policy strictly about deaths number in cases of mass murders/tragedies? Why report of child's death by media is not enough in this case? (If you want to answer - please, do it on Talk page I linked. If you do not wish to engage in this conversation, do not answer, I leave you in peace.) Sobek2000 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without reliable academic or govt sources discussing the existence of either a Los Angeles county certificate of live birth, or a coroner/medical examiner death certificate, there isn't anything to parse; without any documentation to parse, there isn't anything upon which to make a point.

Hope that clears it up, Augmented Seventh 🎱 20:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all as it doesn't answer to any of my question, it only muddles more, but I won't take your time anymore. be well and thank you for your time. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I am only more confused, as you also removed Tate's child from her infobox too. Please explain to me consistency - there are many people who have stillborn children or even born-alive included in their infoboxes. Are all those death certificate available? For example is birth certificate of Justin Bieber's son available or is he discussed in academic papers?

I understand recognizing child in murder count is contentious, but reliable sources do refer as for Tate having unborn child [2] [3] [4]. Why there is need for academic source that mentions birth certificate when you do not have birth certificate for many celebrities and their children?

If there is special wikipedia's policy, please refer me to it. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking there about crime, I am done with this. I am talking about Sharon Tate's biographical page and her infobox. Once again, please - direct me to exact rule of wikipedia who says that there is need for birth certificate to include unborn child in her mother's biographical infobox. It is not 'extraordinary claim' that she had an unborn child - he is literally referred as such by media sources I had link to you; all of them are referring Tate as having 'unborn son/child' who was named Paul Richard Polanski. Hell, her tombstone literally informs everyone about her child's name. As child was unborn, talking about birth certificates is simply moot.

I am not gonna let this, go until you show me a specific wikipedia rule that requires academic discussion about birth cerftificate to include child in infobox - because I am supicious you now made up this whole rule just to get rid of me in this discussion. Most people's on wikipedia does NOT have their birth/death certificate discussed, so we should not have 90 % of biographical pages.

I understand you for some reason disagree with including child into victim list on Tate-La bianca murders page, but there is no legitimate reason for not including him on infobox on her biographical page. He is referred by multiple sources as her unborn child, and that he was included on her page for months. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hey fellow collaborator,

Please no longer direct your concerns regarding certification of live birth and Los Angeles required-by law autopsies of suspicious deaths, onto my talk page unless we have something concrete that allows debate.

I think this conversation has been adequate. Thank you for helping to keep the project vibrant.

Cordially, Augmented Seventh 21:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to debate right now, I have asked you to direct me to wikipedia rule that demands mentions of birth ceritificates in academia papets to include child into person's infobox, as it seems to me you completely made up this rule. Conversation has NOT be adequate, as you refuse to answer any of my point. Do not worry - I am not gonna bother you anymore, since you don't want to talk with me. I wanted just let you know that you wasn't heplful at all and I feel as you have presented me made-up rule. You did not direct me to wikipedia regulamin, but instead gave me your arbitrary opinion on the subject, which makes me question your motives. You even claimed I made "extraordinary claim", when I do not, as Sharon Tate having 1 unborn child is attested by multiple sources (which I brought to you, yet you have never explained why they are not enough) - "extraordinary" would be claim she had a living child, what I never claimed. If you simply cited me wikipedia's rule that say there is need for certificate to include child into infobox, then I would give up. But since you do not, that means you lied to me for some unknown reason, which I do not understand. I won't more write anymore to you, since you refuse to help, but I will continue looking for answer on the Tea Desk. Sobek2000 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

I am going to refer to the voluminous prior explanation, as I cannot see any interim change in the circumstances. As per law during that time period, there would have been both a certificate of birth issued by the department of health Los Angeles city, and a coroner statement post autopsy. Given the exhaustive reporting in reliable sources regarding this crime, there yet isn't a reference to said documents. Without an extraordinary reference, there isn't a way to approach this extraordinary claim. The fact that wp:otherstuff can be found in the project is also not a valid reason to include unsourced content. Augmented Seventh

The Tigger Movie

I would like to talk about my reverted edit in The Tigger Movie. I have tried to explain why I made my edit, but I feel like I'm getting ignored because I'm just an IP user. Like I stated when I made my edit, I changed the line, "Tigger attempts to help his friends remove the boulder, but inadvertently destroys Rabbit's mechanical pulley system in the process" to "Tigger uses a complex bounce to help his friends remove the boulder, but his actions result in the destruction of Rabbit's mechanical pulley system" for two reasons:

Saying that Tigger attempted to remove the boulder kind of sounds like he failed to do so, when he did but his way of doing this did cause chaos.
The bounce that Tigger used to remove the boulder is the Whoopty-Dooper-Loopty-Looper-Alley-Ooper Bounce (the plot summary simply states this as a complex bounce for space). One may think that stating this fact is unimportant at that point but it kind of is important because later in the movie, Tigger explains the bounce that he used to Roo and teaches it to him; Roo would later use this bounce in the movie's climax when he saved Tigger from the avalanche so in a way, saying that Tigger used the complex bounce to move the rock is foreshadowing the climax.

Also, the reason I changed the sentence, "Rabbit and the rest of Tigger's friends admonish him for his reckless nature, hurting his feelings" to "Admonished by the group for his reckless behavior, Tigger starts to feel like an outcast" because I wanted to better describe Tigger's feelings of loneliness. Tigger was sad because he wanted somebody to spend time with, but he felt outcasted because the others told him that they aren't like him. I wanted the summary to describe how Tigger longed for someone to relate to and feel a deep connection with. This would lead to Roo asking Tigger if he has his own family and Tigger going on a quest to find it.

I wouldn't have tried to revert the summary back to my version, but I couldn't talk to Sjones23 because their talk page is semi-protected so I decided to wait until somebody else reverted my edit again so I could explain (sorry about that). Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Have a good day! 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:294D:AA49:FB1A:3419 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I see what you mean.

I was editing strictly on various questionable punctuation decisions and incidents of overlinking.

I am unfamiliar with the plot of this episode. I will revert my previous edit, and we can collaborate.

Thanks for the heads up, Augmented Seventh 🎱 01:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that we could compromise. And you're most welcome! 🤗 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:294D:AA49:FB1A:3419 (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:294D:AA49:FB1A:3419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the reason I had my talk page semi-protected was due to vandalism and issues with IP sock puppets. You can either use my IP discussion page or bring it up on the article talk page if you have any problems with my edits on this particular article. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, and noted. Augmented Seventh 🎱 06:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've created the discussion at Talk:The Tigger Movie#Plot changes if you guys are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Ann

You canceled my modifications of Karin Ann. I am her manager. We did not create this page, never gave approval for creating it and now I just made factical changes necessary to give true information about the artist. For example the discography mentioned by the creator is fragmented and partially wrong - you can check Spotify as source https://open.spotify.com/artist/7t7hXBcoQ0dywVEXB0TOYZ?si=sbqmHKhQRvi4zZ4xqFOx9g The name of singles, EP, album - wrong in discography and even in the rest of the text - wrongly written - also check Spotify as source. Another facts wrong - Karin Ann never released single "i don´t believe in God" single nor co-writing it with Imogen Heap! Imogen Heap made REMIX of this song (which I mentioned in discography and deleted this information from the text). This is very dangerous from legal point of view (contract that the artist has with other subjects) to publish false information and it can cost us legal penalty. I would like to ask you to review all my changes I made again. Thank you. Verique (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to keep the encyclopedia accurate.

You've raised multiple points; we can address stylized text on song titles first.

See the Wikipedia article for the upcoming Taylor swift release for the correct manual of style.

The i. heap track is problematic and poorly sourced. I wonder where the article creator found that (assumed incorrect) factoid).

The question of permission to write encyclopedia articles based on other, reliably written content isn't a thing, as anyone can edit the project—given certain caveats.

I need you to look at the firm policy regarding your claimed relationship with the subject of the article. It will help with your questions regarding your claimed client and liability.

Hope that helps, Augmented Seventh 🎱 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to delete the page that the artist nor her management created (because we did not want to have any yet)? It was created (and published) by someone we do not know, with poor sourcing, wrong information and we do not want to argue how we can or can not edit the facts that were published wrongly not by us and without our awareness. Please advice me what is the process for deleting the page. Thank you. Verique (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer you're looking for is located at WP:del. Augmented Seventh 🎱 22:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Verique (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1949

Dear Augmented Seventh: Despite early press reports cited in the article, the film 1949 is not based on Colm Toibin's The Magician. The most recent press reports do not refer to the book. How do you recommend that error be omitted? Thanks in advance. 135.129.134.150 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this production ever since the source material was published.

A quick glance pulls up dozens of sources, interviews with the director, cast, screenwriter, etc; all stating the same thing.

Reliable sources. That's the ticket. Augmented Seventh 14:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please see the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prostitution_in_Iran 92.113.42.181 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

wp:EWN#User:92.113.42.181 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) diff Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. Augmented Seventh 03:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account is removing the information please block , he removes everything

This account is removing the information please block , he removes everything 196.189.16.165 (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy fellow collaborator,

I noticed you changed significant dates, substituted the designation "painter" with "chill artist", and used thesaurus-like edits for no apparent reason.

You will need to specifically explain your date changes, in detail, with reliable sources. And enlighten the project what you mean by chill artist.

Have a Wikipedia day Augmented Seventh 21:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a note, the entire section was directly copied from a fan site with included errors.

Hope that helps. Augmented Seventh 21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of edit

Hello thanks for your comment on the page I edited. I did use AI to edit the page specifically for grammar and wording only. I wrote all content myself using the sources listed and confirmed that no content was changed after AI wording/grammar check. I believe that it is allowed to use AI for grammar editing purposes, but I would be willing to revert to my pre edited version. But I would like to republish my edits as they are original properly cited work and contribute valuable information to the topic. Kmd481 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]