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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Notable people of prestbury

andy ireland was added and you reverted. No issues, it was a prank on him which we were going to revert once screenshots1 were taken. No offence meant 82.19.38.21 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G Wilson Image

Hi, you've flagged and removed a rights-free image of Michael G Wilson that I uploaded. How can we get this re-instated? Ai London (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ai London It looks like you took it from this webpage, which says content is copyright 2025 EON Productions. You'll have to demonstrate that you own the image and are in a position to release it from copyright, or that the image is already licensed in such a way that Wikipedia can use it. ( And if you do possess the copyright, you may have to address Wikipedia policy on a possible conflict of interest you may have.). Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't taken from EON's website, it was distributed by the EON press office. The website itself is owned by EON but the image is a rights free press image which is why it does not have a specific photographer credit on it. The image is given out by the EON press office for any press requesting an image of Wilson but not wanting to pay a library for one. Ai London (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ai London When you re-upload the image, could you make this clear? I'm sorry, I can't recall now, but when you uploaded it before, I think you claimed it was your own work, which is clearly not the case. You should explain where the image came from and on what basis it is provided. There are links on the upload that explain exactly what Wikipedia prefers, and the rules about photos of living persons are quite particular. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any sort of license. Uploading the image again claiming it is a "rights free press image" is meaningless. That isn't a license. You will need to have the copyright holder go through the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to confirm a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

Why does my edit concern you? Sunshinejoefixit (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contradicted what the sources on the article say. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a niyogi brahmin. He hides that. Sunshinejoefixit (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care what you think he is and what he's doing. It only cares what reliable sources say. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There’s an ANI discussion concerning Phantomsnake’s edit-warring with you. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umabolinhabrancaboke

Not sure what to do about this new editor. Some bad grammar as you've seen, removing templates, changing link from a direct link to a redirect. Some ok edits also. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, but also WP:CIR. See if they get the hang of things, but take action if they're still making mistakes with no sign of learning. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll have to if they continue. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in Portuguese, saying their talk page is their personal space and claiming 3000 edits. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo blocked them indefinitely for harassment. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mars bar

Is there a reason you believe the mars and of the UK to be a milky way in the USA they are different bars of chocolate Sharnadd (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharnadd Because that what the sources say. What I believe doesn't matter. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources actually say the opposite Sharnadd (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It even states it lower down in the article they are two different bars. The mars bar in the UK was modelled off the milky way in the USA but the milky way in the USA has a caramel layer that is not in the uk. Two separate distinct bars. I added a source which shows the difference Sharnadd (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharnadd The caramel layer was in the US Mars Bar. It has nothing to do with what is in the US Milky Way.

I realise it's confusing, but blame the manufacturers.

• US Milky Way created first.
• UK Mars Bar created, essentially same as US Milky Way.
• US Mars Bar created, different to above two; nougat, toasted almonds ( kind of like UK Snickers)
• US Mars Bar discontinued
• US Mars Bar reintroduced with caramel
• US Mars Bar discontinued again.
• US Mars Bar reintroduced with original recipe, without caramel.

Entirely separately; UK Milky Way created, kind of similar to US 3 Musketeers. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So USA milky way made

Mars bars made in UK based off a milky way but not the same . more caramel in milky way and less dense than a mars bar. A mars bar in he UK being marketed as a milky way would be if the mars bar was taken and renamed a milky way. It is a separate bar of chocolate Sharnadd (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharnadd I have no idea. The sources do not compare a US Milky Way to the UK Mars Bar, so the article cannot say how different or similar they are. They just say that one was created to be the same as the other, but have different names. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So different bars one was based off the other Sharnadd (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But sources say the US Milky Way and the UK Mars Bar are effectively the same. But created by different members of the same family. Perhaps the way the "American version" of the Mars Bar could be better worded in the lead. I'll change it a little to make it clearer that the US Mars Bar is nothing like the same as the UK Mar Bar. Frankly, bringing in discussion about the the US Milky Way just muddies the waters. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Queen fan with a question

I was looking through this 2010 revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_(band)&oldid=360203019 There is a paragraph that describes the logo. The deleted file was fair use, but it was removed with the excuse that there is no critical commentary about the logo. If there was a paragraph describing the logo, why was it not considered “critical commentary”? The part that doesn't make sense is that there was a paragraph describing the logo, so if there was no free equivalent, why couldn't the fair use logo illustrate the paragraph? The users that removed the insignia did not acknowledge the paragraph describing the logo. I need a more clear explanation. 2601:404:D000:B915:D7AE:5DAF:6E5E:53A1 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the logo is not commentary about the logo. For it to be "fair use" you need to have content that discusses/critiques the logo. Like; is a good logo? What was the designer's intent? Who was the designer? Does it give a good representation of the band? Is it reminiscent of other logos? And all that would need to be cited to good sources discussing the logo.

However, for the purposes of the Queen article, that would all probably be unsuitable detail anyway. The article is about the band, not the band's logo, and there is nothing really that remarkable about the logo. I think enough good sources may be difficult to find to demonstrate it was important.

So, that leaves any inclusion of the logo on the band article as simply "because it looks nice". That is not a good enough reason to qualify for "fair use".

However, if there was an article about the logo, and it demonstrated notability by having good cites about it, then use of the logo on that article would be "fair use".

The same reasoning is used for album covers. The The Works (Queen album) article may use a single low-res image of the album cover, because the article specifically discusses the album and the cover helps. That is "fair use". But the Queen (band) article may not. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the fair use image illustrate a single paragraph? Just because the article is about the band and not the the logo doesn't mean a single paragraph can't be represented by a non-free image of the crest. 2601:404:D000:B915:4774:93EB:19E7:8FFB (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the paragraph saying? How is it sourced? Refer to Wikipedia policy here. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Note where it says "the article topic", which in this case would be Queen, the band, not the logo. Does the appearance of this logo really significantly increase the reader's understanding of Queen? I doubt it, but you may be able to source something that explains how much more important the logo is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the paragraph said in 2010:

"Having attended art college, Mercury also designed Queen's logo (also called the Queen crest) shortly before the release of the band's first album. The logo combines the zodiac signs of all four members: two lions for Leo (Deacon and Taylor), a crab for Cancer (May), and two fairies for Virgo (Mercury). The lions embrace a stylised letter Q, the crab rests atop the letter with flames rising directly above it, and the fairies are each sheltering below a lion. There is also a crown inside the Q and the whole logo is over-shadowed by an enormous phoenix. The whole symbol bears a passing resemblance to the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, particularly with the lion supporters. The original logo, as found on the reverse-side of the first album cover, was a simple line drawing but more intricate colour versions were used on later sleeves." 2601:404:D000:B915:F62:B0A4:A700:7961 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:404:D000:B915:F62:B0A4:A700:7961 That's not bad, but it still leaves the problem that the article is not about the logo, and Wikipedia guidelines are that "fair use" is permitted in identifying the article subject. There's no getting around that Wikipedia permits "fair use", but always attempt to minimise its use. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie & The Dreamers

Please can you stop reverting my edits? Why are you against mentioning the Death dates of the Members on this Page?

As Someone who has personal links to one of original the band Members, I can assure you that everyone is very much Dead.

The death years of each member been on there listed for years. Why do you think it's suddenly Irrelevant to mention the years that they died? Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the band. If they left the band years, if not decades, before dying, why is that relevant to the band?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I have no idea, because I can't verify what you're saying. But someone anonymous claiming to personally know something is not an adequate source of information for Wikipedia. Especially for something as personal and sensitive as dying. What would you think if someone else claiming to know the band started putting unsourced and inaccurate info on the article, and Wikipedia was fine with that? You wouldn't be impressed. What if you were the person having misinformation spread about you? Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask what counts as a 'Reliable Source' in this instance?

aside from Freddie Garitty, everyone else were living private lives after leaving the band.

It's going to be a struggle to find any News articles, etc that prove that they are dead & if so, it won't be a top level news source like Rolling Stone, or the BBC.

This is certainly the case with Roy Crewdson. I know for a fact that his death hasn't been reported on any News sites (not even niche sites about 60s misicians, nor any Tenerife Newspapers for British expats). The best source you'll get in this particular case is a facebook post from a living relative. Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepper Gaming If you cannot find a reliable source, then unfortunately it needn't be mentioned. Wikipedia is not a repository of all knowledge, it's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias must rely on reliable sources, and unfortunately a lot happens in the world never reported by reliable sources. In this case, it would appear to include those living private lives. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, a Direct relative of Roy Crewdson wouldn't count as a reliable source? What about the offical pages for the bars they own in tenerife? Would they class as reliable sources? Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can start a Facebook account claiming to be anyone, claiming anything, for any possible reason. That's why Facebook messages don't cut it as a reliable source. The bar website would be better, not perfect, but better. Particularly if it makes the connection to Freddie and the Dreamers.

Roy Crewdson is the band member that I have close & personal links to:

His family live out in Tenrife & own two bars out in Tenrife (Dreamers & Churchills).

I have been going to Tenerife with family for years now & we've been regular visitors to both of his bars. Over the years we've gotten to become personal friends with his family & we eventually got the chance to meet Roy himself & become personal friends with him.

Since meeting Roy for the first time. Everytime since, hs treated me as if I was part of his family. Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he was a good man. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at the Wittenberg article

Greetings user Escape Orbit. Just to be clear here, my last edit summary at the Wittenberg page was not directed at you. And indeed made that clear (although I did not realize I had run out of character space already). At least you know how to constructively edit, and leave an appropriate edit summary. Good luck continuing to pare down that horribly overwritten lead.2601:196:180:DC0:8512:EFCC:73F7:39C (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Cinema Edit

Hello,

I thought the information removed from the On Cinema page was fairly useful for new viewers as it is one of the only summaries about the show on the internet. Would it be more appropriate to have its own separate page? 217.180.201.141 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@217.180.201.141 It would be more appropriate on its own website. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original content compiled by fans of a show. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is more similar to the plot summary of a movie. Having watched the show up to this point, it didn't contain any inserts or details that aren't already in the show, to my knowledge. 217.180.201.141 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a "plot summary" it constituted 93% of the article. See WP:NOTPLOT. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hair

13% of Scotland does not have red hair this is a misconception that has now been disproven by research. Dr. Jim Wilson conducted the largest study on red hair and found the number of people in Scotland with the hair colour to be only 6% which is backed up by an older study from 1907 which had over half a 500,000 participants making it by far the largest study on hair colour in Scottish history and found the number of Scottish redheads to be 5.3% I think it's far more accurate to state 6% of Scotland is red haired as oppose to 13% as that figure is purely just an estimation Billybob the third1244 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC) Billybob the third1244 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the discussion we had about this nine years ago. The research you refer to is dubious. But I suspect you know this, seeing as you managed to restore to this article the same cites dated and removed as dubious at the time.

I suggested a solution to this all those years ago. The idea that different studies can rank and compare figures, producing a "red-head league table" is questionable, especially when they have different results and differing methodology. The article would be improved if it merely stated the results of the different studies (explaining their strengths and limitations as described by reliable sources). Let the reader then decide for themselves who comes top, if they are so inclined. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never had a discussion with you nine years ago as I only joined Wikipedia a few months ago also the 13% number u keep correcting me with is only an estimation not a fact. The study on red hair that I would consider most reliable is from 1907 which had over half a million participants which is still the largest study on hair colour in Scotland even to this day and found that the percentage of Scots who had Red hair to be only 5.3%. This can be backed up by Dr. Jim Wilson's study of nearly 2,500 Scottish people that found that 6% of Scots have red hair. Why continue to use the 13% estimation when we know the actual answer Billybob the third1244 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Dr. Jim Wilson's study has been criticised by geneticists for headline-grabbing statements of questionable accuracy. If you didn't have this discussion nine years ago, where did you get a cite dated nine years ago? Why does your argument regarding the content sound remarkably similar to that from nine years ago? Why are you confusing studies about having red hair with studies about having red hair genes? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By which geneticists is it criticised? Even if you dont like Dr. Jim Wilson's study it is still far more reliable than the 13% figure that you seem to be defending as that is just an estimation not based on any study, survey or fact also it is backed up by the 1907 largest ever Scottish hair colour study that analysed over half a million people and found the percentage of Scots with red hair to be only 5.3% nowhere near the 13% you claim Billybob the third1244 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are ignoring the differences between a public study identifying school children with red hair, and a study one hundred years later of self-selected people with the DNA that causes red hair. This is one of the reasons why comparing studies' results, and picking one over another is fraught with problems. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that those studies are 100% perfect very few studies are we could definitely do with some better ones which as of right now we do not have so those two are the best we got because at least they are based on something unlike the 13% estimation that you an another person keep correcting me on Billybob the third1244 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could say the same about Moffat/Wilson's claim in their book, so I get your point. Frankly I'd re-write the whole paragraph and stop pretending that anyone has published a study or review worthy of the name. I suggest you raise the matter on the article talk page and we can get it sorted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you give me permission to edit this page again Billybob the third1244 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you give me permission to edit the red hair Wikipedia page again without you changing it as I don't want to start warring Billybob the third1244 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that erasing one dubious claim, supported by a questionable source, and replacing it with one even more dubious, is going to improve the article. Please outline how you are improving the article on the article talk page, where everyone can see it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I just say that both Ireland and Scotland have the highest percentages of red hair and not include that one has more or less than the other I think that would be fairest thing to do given both sources are not the greatest although I do think the one I replaced it with was better as it has actual studies backing it unlike the 13% number that is based off an exaggerated estimate and has zero evidence to support it apart from one guy said it to be true a few years ago and media ran with it. Billybob the third1244 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please put what you propose to do on the article talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ortiz de Vilhegas

Thank you for sorting that out. I saw the new category and the names added and did not personally have the strength the deal with it. I think the whole category should be scrapped, but I'm probably not the one to deal with that. But thank you again. Knitsey (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resident evil events

Good day. I want to point out that the fact that 9 game returns the player to Raccoon City for the first time since the third part is a well-known fact, and can be verified both by yourself, by reading the synopsis of all the games between them, and by looking at any description, including the official one, in the media. I can understand when anonymous or newly created users try to remove it, but when such obvious things are questioned by people who I think are familiar with the series, it's strange. But to avoid edit wars and pointless disputes, I still added a few first sources that came across. They could have been found much more due to the obviousness of the fact, but I hope that this will not go too far. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even "well known facts" need sources. "Well known" by who? I didn't know this, so I've to take an anonymous Wikipedia editor's word for it? I shouldn't have to read all the previous games synopsis, and work out what it all means, to determine this. What's more, I shouldn't be relying on an anonymous Wikipedia editor's reading it and deciding what it means, and that it's notable, either. Readers should be given reliable sources that can be trusted to do this accurately on notable facts. Note that I'm not saying that you, @Solaire the knight: are wrong or not to be trusted. Just that Wikipedia policy says no editor is to be trusted in this way. You may be mistaken. You may just be trolling. It may be irrelevant detail not worth mentioning. Reliable sources are the only sure way. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know the information that you can find out by simply reading the synopsis of the games or looking at any news about the announcement of this game? I understand that not everyone in the world is aware of RE's lore, but in this context it's starting to resemble a reductio ad absurdum that calls for demanding sources even for information that can be learned directly from the game's plot. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, you could add just about anything to Wikipedia, and suggest readers go find the news elsewhere to verify. Not a very helpful or useful way to write an encyclopaedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously I didn't say you can add anything. What I was saying is that there are cases where sources are not required, either because the information can be learned directly from the plot/script, or it is an obvious fact. For example, it is mentioned in the synopsis or can be very easily verified. Obviously, pointing this out does not mean that I encourage using any information without sources. Since you insist so much on the letter of the rules, you must have known about this nuance, right? Then why are you clearly reducing my position to absurdity? Solaire the knight (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warning June 9, 2025

Sorry, but my patience is not infinite. You asked for sources, I provided them. But when you literally delete information with sources, literally saying that since you called it the original source, you can delete it, then this is beyond the bounds of playing by the rules. If this continues, I will be forced to write to the administrators. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a source. You described how the reader could, like you, work something out. All you did was describe your original research. You need a source that actually says what you are claiming on the article. Your second source does this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I see what you did. You quoted the source, which is what confused me. I'll fix this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another user managed to create a compromise version, so I will not escalate this for the sake of principle. But a situation where you ask for a source and then delete the text anyway, citing your own opinion while being interested party to the conflict, clearly does not contribute to resolving the conflict situation. Especially when there is already a dispute with another user in the article and this only fuels the chaos. I hope there won't be a next time, but if you have any questions, please use the discussion page instead of taking overly bold actions that could lead to a new conflict. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not an interest party in the conflict. I had no idea which of you were correct and no opinion on the matter. I could, however, see that solution to the conflict was either of you citing a source to back up what you were claiming. Neither of you were, preferring to argue about what your interpretation of events meant, with edit summaries claiming "obvious facts" and "untrue". This is why I removed the disputed text, encouraging either of you to cite what was claimed, regardless of how obvious you believed it. Reliable sources frequently clear up disputes and is basic Wikipedia policy you should learn to utilise. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot interfere in someone else's dispute and heat it up, while thinking that you are outside of it. You had every right to ask for the source, doubting that it was not the original research. But by interfering in someone else's dispute and then deleting my text again with the added sources, and based it purely on your opinion instead of any discussion, you clearly became part of the dispute. Especially given our tense dialogue. You may not have had bad intentions, but your actions clearly escalated the situation. Not to mention that your lack of reaction to a user changing the RE3 I mentioned to the unsourced RE0 seems very odd, both in terms of your stated zero tolerance for original sources and the seeming denial of the existence of obvious information on the wiki (depending on your reasons for keeping it). But I'm tired of tilting at windmills, just try using the talk page instead of edit wars next time. Goodbye. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "your" dispute, it was disruption on a Wikipedia article. I could have warned you both for edit warring and risked you getting blocked. I was assuming your good faith, and did you a favour by not. You're welcome. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fastbuttons

Hello, is there any gadget or scripts close to pt:Wikipédia:Scripts/FastButtons for RC patroll? I'm getting used to Twinkle but i don't find it very intuitive to use. Fastbuttons adds especific actions to reverting vandalism + specific template notices for user talk pages (do not remove sourced content, cite sources, misuse of user page, welcome messages, etc.) without leaving the dif page. It would be very helpful in RC patroll. OnlyJonny (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK bro

change the Celtic F.C logo back to 200 size, that's not funny 74.12.181.3 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi! Can I know why you reverted the signature edits for Jack White and Meg White? All you put was "No thanks" which doesn't tell me why a revert is warranted and came off as a bit abrupt/rude. Watagwaan (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Watagwaan I put a full explanation on the talk page. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Books Chapters

Is there any article or platform in Wikipedia in which the names of the chapters from the seven Harry Potter books can be written? Would a collapsible table be accepted? Would Wikipedia approve a separate article with the list of Harry Potter chapters? The names of the chapters haven't been written on any Wikipedia article, there might be a solution for it. Ryanco88 (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository of all information. Some things are of no importance and don't belong here. So first you'd have to demonstrate that the names of chapters within the book have some significance outside of the book.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Easter egg link"

If you remove that 27 club link from Ria Bartok's page you should do the same with Leslie Harvey, Alexandre Levy, Louis Chauvin, and Jonghyun. Keep it going, seems like you have a lot of time on your hands. Mikiko609 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Setting

Hello, I saw you reverted my edit back to “an unnamed city” when describing where “Seven” takes place. However, I feel that the movie is obviously set in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, given how rainy and dangerous the city is. If you were to step one foot in the Borough, you’d realize that if anything the horror of the city is watered down for the movie. JoeyGub (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-American Company flag

Hello I'm copying a complaint about "vandalism" from 2023 in hopes it will explain my reasons for today's edit, and I hope you will respect the reasons for it. "The contributor "NuclearVacuum" has repeatedly inserted his own artwork on this page and other Wikipedia pages which reference Russian-America history. Not only is his artwork incorrect in many details, the substitution of modern replica sensibilities in place of original historic documents undermines the very purpose of vexillogical research and perpetuates errors and mistakes. This type of self-promotion is inexcusable in regards to historic research and accurate information" 172.243.224.152 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commas.

Hi there,

I wanted to check about the recent reversions of my edits where I added commas after short introductory time phrases like “In 1904,” “By 1304,” and “In May 1297,” etc. According to Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, it’s generally recommended to include commas after these kinds of introductory phrases to help with clarity and readability.

Also, I noticed that many similar phrases throughout the articles already include these commas, so I was trying to keep things consistent, which is something the Manual of Style encourages.

If there’s a difference of opinion on this, the best way forward would be to start a conversation on the talk pages instead of undoing my edits all at once.

Cheers. Sean the Moray (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say this in Wikipedia's Manual of style? With short introductory prepositional phrases (like two words), a comma is not required and adds nothing to clarity or readability. If anything, it's clutter that detracts from sentence flow. It can be a matter of taste or style, I'll admit. But I see no reason to pick through articles adding them when the original writer has chosen not to. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a comma after a short introductory phrase isn’t required, but the Manual of Style allows both forms.

But in cases like this, where more than one style is acceptable, the MOS advises: “Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason.” (That’s at the top of the MOS page).

The articles I edited used commas after introductory phrases, so I continued that to keep things consistent. Had there been no commas used that way, I wouldn’t have made the edits. The writer chose to use the style I have outlined above, which is why I believe my edits were justified. Sean the Moray (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean the Moray The manual of style says nothing about it either way. It is not a style or format. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but every other introductory (time) phrase in the articles are followed by a comma, if you read over them you’ll see. So I’m simply continuing the already existing style as per Wikipedia’s MoS. Surely that’s the best thing to do in this case? I get you disagree with the style but that’s not a reason to undo my edits. Sean the Moray (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean the Moray It's not something that needs to be uniform, even if that were possible. Sentences within articles are written in all kinds of way. They have all kinds of clauses, sub clauses, digressions, punctuation, and syntax. Looking at Robert the Bruce, for instance, I can see a mix of how introductory prepositional phrases are used. It's certainly not a case of "every other" as you suggest. But I'm not counting to see which is most common.

Nothing in the MoS says sentences should be indentically structured throughout an article, and it doesn't say anything at all about short introductory prepositional phrases. Sometimes a comma is needed for clarity, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's a matter of taste. Your taste appears to be for them, but that's no reason to edit articles. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request new image

Hey how are you.. I request to you to replace the current image of Imran Khan infobox with this file I provided you.

File:Imran Khan as Prime Minister of Pakistan in 2020.jpg

IWritting Right (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celebs go dating

The 'celebs go dating' lineup has been confirmed why are you deleting my updates? https://www.channel4.com/press/news/celebs-go-dating-reveals-line-series-14 Tr12289 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tr12289 Because you never cited any source for them. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello! I noticed your edit on actor biographies including on actor Cha Eun-woo, I hope you can help cleaning the page up if you have time. I also requested a cleanup of Park Bo-gum’s page over at Wiki Project Cleanup but no response so far. I hope an impartial editor like you can improve it. Thank you very much! Swedishfisch (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Inaccuracy?

I think your edit below made the Linus Sebastian article less accurate and somewhat overstated/misrepresented Linus' skills and roles in the making of NCIX's videos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linus_Sebastian&diff=next&oldid=1247843788

Maybe you just wanted to simplify the sentence, but that sentence can be understood as Linus recording videos at NCIX all by himself with the borrowed camera, which is not true, which is stated in the source of that sentence that you rewrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJbLHLnTrd4&t=3m10s

Just hope that you don't accidentally change the meaning of a sentence again in another article :)

--WayToGooooooo (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my edit made it inaccurate, just avoided mention of unknown people who weren't significant. But, fair enough, it's mentioned in source and does appear to be a notable feature of the videos. Thanks for correcting it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained changes

Please don't edit my changes without any explanation purposes. Thank you. Bryangul2020 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an explanation on every single revert. If you'd like me to explain any further, please specify which. I also notice that on 90% of your edits you give no edit summary or explanation to what you are doing. Please use the edit summaries. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaldo

Rivaldo is absolutly one of the best footballers in history. He was voted in two World Cup teams of the tournament, scored eight goals in two World Cups, won the Ballon D'Or, and is one of nine players ever who won the World Cup, Ballon D'Or and the Champions League. In Brazil he is widely recognized as one of the three best No.10s in their history. He may not be the biggest name, but real football fans know absolutly that he is one of the greats. Worse players have the label 'greatest of all time' on this page. He at least deserves a mention of 'best midfielder in history' in the opening text. 2003:D8:C741:4242:E485:16E5:150B:C4F4 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2003:D8:C741:4242:E485:16E5:150B:C4F4 Wikipedia doesn't care what he deserves. It cares what reliable sources say. If a good reliable source holds this opinion, then it can be added, properly attributed and cited. Otherwise it's just an opinion by someone unknown. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What opinion? He is one of nine players in history of football to win the World Cup, the Ballon D'Or and the Champions League, and was voted twice in the best team of the tournament. There are endless best lists in which he appears, I can send you the link of dozens. Is this some personal dislike from you against Rivaldo? These are hard facts I listed. 2003:D8:C741:4242:E485:16E5:150B:C4F4 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.famousfix.com/list/brazilian-football-museum-hall-of-fame

https://www.givemesport.com/brazils-greatest-ever-footballer/

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ranked-the-best-brazilian-players-ever-footballers-all-time

https://www.givemesport.com/ballon-dor-winners-football-history-ranked-by-fans/

Do you need more? There is countless evidence that he deserves at least the tag 'one of the greatest Brazil players ever' in his opening text. 2003:D8:C741:4242:E485:16E5:150B:C4F4 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All this is already on the article. The reader knows the awards he has, so they can make up their own mind how great he is. They don't need someone's orignal synthesis to decide it for them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the consistency with the other articles then? Comparable players like Luis Figo, Thierry Henry, or Roberto Baggio all have this addition in their descriptions. Either you remove it from all of those articles as well, or I will be forced to revise the article myself. It is not justified to delete this addition for footballers who have achieved the same or even more in their careers, and it also contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia. The choice is yours. Either change it, or I will. I have already sent you enough reliable sources, and even official institutions such as the Brazilian Football Confederation and France Football clearly place Rivaldo at that level. Jhf0023 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are problems on other articles, the best idea is to go raise the issue about them on their talk pages. Issues on some articles are never a reason for creating the same problem on another. You cannot add opinions to articles unless they are properly attributed and cited to a notable source. It's that simple. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the Brazilian Football Federation and other official institutions in world football are no notable sources? It's okay, by time I will do it by myself, you seem to have no clue about football. Jhf0023 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources for their opinion. Properly attributed there isn't a problem, as I've tried to make you understand. What was being added to the article was a claim about something being widely regarded, when all the sources could verify is what the source itself thought. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racing driver flags

Hi, flags in infoboxes is a longstanding matter of standardisation of WP:MOTORSPORT and WP:F1, please bring your concerns there. All racing drivers represent governing bodies of various countries that license them and these parameters are more than just listing their nationality. Drivers frequently represent countries they are not a citizen of or were not born in, just the country that licenses them. Even the reigning Formula One World Champion races for a country he was not born nor raised in. MB2437 13:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is half my point. The use of the "nationality" field is incorrect. It isn't their nationality that is being represented. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Have you ever watched a podium ceremony in motor racing? While they race for manufacturers/constructors, they also race as representatives of the countries that license them. MB2437 17:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it isn't their nationality, yet it is misusing the nationality field. You literally said yourself; " these parameters are more than just listing their nationality" --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it isn't their nationality—you do not have to resort to putting words in my mouth. It is their racing nationality, not a misuse of the parameter (which are not, as you seem to think, used as part of non-racing infoboxes), and longstanding content of WP:MOTORSPORT and its related task forces / child projects. This applies the same as any other sport where competitors represent their country. All Formula One nationality parameters are appropriately linked to both an explanation of driver nationality in the sport and of each individual nationality; see the infobox of Lewis Hamilton, for example. MB2437 18:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mb2437 Lewis Hamilton's article has nationality listed as part of his F1 career in the F1 driver infobox template. It does not appear as a personal attribute.

From the documentation for the Racing driver infobox.

nationality = <!-- use only when necessary per [[WP:INFONAT]] -->

If the template references WP:INFONAT, then it's not unreasonable to expect its use to conform to that. If that's not how the template is getting used, perhaps it needs updating. If what you are trying to convey to the reader is something different from the person's nationality, it maybe should not be flag waving in a field labelled nationality, that is documented as conforming to genetic infobox manual of style about nationality.

And MOS:INFOBOXFLAG also has something to say about flag decoration in infoboxes.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was literally quoting what you just said because you seemed to misunderstand the issue. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You equally seem to misunderstand that racing drivers compete for nationalities in similar ways to other sports. Lewis Hamilton's article has nationality listed as part of his F1 career in the F1 driver infobox template. It does not appear as a personal attribute. This is the case for all racing driver infoboxes—they are not there to list personal attributes. 'Using when necessary' is always up for debate, so it may be worth bringing to the template's talk page to clarify this point. But, again, this is longstanding convention of WP:MOTORSPORT. I think the easiest fix—and I have previously considering requesting this—is to move the nationality field underneath the related championship heading, similar to the way it appears in the F1 infobox. MB2437 22:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The racing driver infobox template specifically references WP:INFONAT. I changed articles in line with what the template's documentation says. You tell what undocumented convention of WP:MOTORSPORT" is, but this is not what the template says. If you want to avoid changes against longstanding convention, then please fix the template's documentation. If convention of WP:MOTORSPORT is counter to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, it should be incumbent on WP:MOTORSPORT, and the template, to explain itself.

And I don't follow how you can argue that nationality in the racing driver info box is not a personal attribute, when it's right there next to "birth_date". It is not unreasonable to think these are personal attributes, particularly when, as I think I've already explained, their documentation references the MOS about biographies.

Perhaps a specific example would help. Why does the Doriane Pin article find use of the nationality field necessary, with additional flag contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG? You've already explained that it is not necessarily her nationality as might be understood in any other biography. WP:INFONAT suggests it is not required because it is no different from what the reader would expect for someone born in France. It's equally the country you might expect her to represent in racing. So what's it doing there? If it is telling the reader something that is not her nationality, why label it nationality next to her date and place of birth? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I agree it shouldn't be in that location. MB2437 15:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ellie Damant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ellie Damant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Damant until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]