User talk:Squeakachu

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Squeakachu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —PaleoNeonate – 20:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 20 hoax

Hi - The revisions i made to this page are based on facts and research I have done. Why does this keep getting reversed out? The information on this page is false information, Please advise what i Need to provide you to keep the edits i have made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemansi (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect what reliable sources say about a topic. Instagram posts and personal blogs aren't subject to any kind of peer review or editorial control. As a result, they are not acceptable sources for the kind of material you're adding. If other editors object to what you're adding the way to respond to that is to discuss the matter with them and try to convince them that your additions are warranted. Continuously re-adding disputed material, as you are doing now, is called edit warring. Also, when posting to a talk page please sign your post by adding four tildes at the end. Squeakachu (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have emails directly from employees at the Lunar Planetary Institute stating photo AS15-P-9625 is direftly from NASA photo archives. This is the photo that should be on your site that "Hoaxers" use to show proof the ship exists. Also, the photo of "Guyot" crater is not the right photo to be using to say that hoaxers state shows proof. Further, the few articles and videos sited in the currently published site are all opinions and random videos...I am completely lost as to how that infrmation is any more or less truth than the changes i have proposed. Now, I understand not including the instagram page, that i can leave out but Joses research goes into way more detail than anything published so far on this page and with my confirmations i can at least post those facts and let the reader decide....Natemansi (talk)

(talk page gnome) @Natemansi: Those are WP:PRIMARY and self-published sources (WP:SPS) and thus suboptimal for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about journalistic false balance (presenting claims and sources as having equal validity to eachother, see WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV and WP:PSCI). —PaleoNeonate – 14:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Almost all the information and sources on this page now are journalistic and most of the facts are false...Wow i now know what Wikipedia is - A biased and once sided platform to promote a biased perspective. GOOD TO KNOW. Ill NEVER trust WIKIPEDIA EVER AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemansi (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Natemansi: or the opposite: the encyclopedia aims to present mainstream knowledge as reported by reliable sources, not speculation and propaganda. But yes, there are plenty of more appropriate places to promote, like personal blogs... —PaleoNeonate – 01:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

app test edit

Test test test Squeakachu (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Titanic 1996 TV series actually did contain sexual abuse.

To the user Squeakachu

I have actually watched Titanic 1996 TV show on DVD and a woman was actually assaulted in the shower in the Titanic TV show. I did add the category to the films since they are relevant. I watched it with my mom and dad and we turned off the DVD right after running into a rape scene with the man assaulting a woman in the shower in the film and it has upset me very much and I never watched the film ever again, I'm very disappointed in the Titanic TV show. This actually contained Clockwork Orange content.

Can I ask you to restore the reverts of Films about Rape and sexual abuse catalog since it is related, I don't want underage people to come to the article and then watch the MA rated TV show and come across a controversial sexual assault scene, I'm very disappointed with the creator who approved of the rated R scene in Titanic TV show 1996. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I still think the Rape and Sexual Abuse categories are a bad fit for that article. If you look at those categories you can see that they contain articles that deal with rape and sexual abuse in the real world, not in fiction (or in this case, a dramatization of a historical event). The categories aren't there to serve as warnings about content. They're pathways for readers to find more information about a topic, and I don't think that it would be useful to direct someone who wants to learn about the general subjects of rape and sexual abuse to the article about the Titanic miniseries. The Films About Rape category is probably ok. I looked through that category and I think adding the Titanic article would probably be consistent with how that category is being used, so I've restored that one. Squeakachu (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent

Speakachu, I'm stating a fact that is on 'The Independent' website. They are targeting a Conservative based on no proof. Thus making the paper very biased and reading through most of its pages they are indeed left wing viewed articles.

I have rewritten the message and it is not biased, it's factual information. Have you even read the article in question? Have you read many of their articles which are very left wing biased? They are know for being more left and The Guardian swings more right. Wikipedia is based on factual information,is that correct? So please tell me where my information isn't indeed factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.90.226 (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Adding your own opinion or analysis of a subject is not appropriate. Squeakachu (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Gacy

I think this article needs protecting as it is incessantly attracting vandals as of late, Squeakachu. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieronoldham:. I see Ponyo protected the article indefinitely, so hopefully that will solve the problem. Squeakachu (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks. :) Just reading through the article again making sure nothing has been overlooked. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Gacy is just another Constantine Marganis. All of the Greek locals knew about Marganis and the Ghouls of Macedonia back in the 1940's. This was a taboo subject, and people were afraid to talk about it for fear that they would be targeted by Marganis and his group of cannibals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8C80:7ED0:3175:8A3D:6B32:1093 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's real, then I'm sure it's not so taboo that there aren't any sources for it. Squeakachu (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback perms

Hi, you seem to be quite active in recent changes patrolling, consider applying for rollbacker, it makes patrolling much faster. Justiyaya 15:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya: It's crossed my mind but I've never bothered since I'm happy with Twinkle. Is it noticeably different from Twinkle's rollback function? Squeakachu (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, huggle (a tool that you get access only if you have rollback) is much better than twinkle and using the recent changes menu, it's sorta up to personal preference, it's more likely that you'll make mistakes with it but allows you to go much faster. I don't know your exact situation, but if you think you meet the requirements, apply for it and try it, you can always go back to the normal twinke/recent changes menu way if you don't like it. Justiyaya 23:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you can always go back to the normal twinke/recent changes menu way if you don't like it. Quite true. I'll give it a try. Squeakachu (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Squeakachu. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a pending changes reviewer!

Hi Squeakachu! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

  • A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
  • A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
  • Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
  • You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
  • Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US sucks

Russiaa is the expansionist politicalogical hyperpower, the us is the a declining small power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:4E3D:9700:51AE:5051:D3D4:9D37 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment's now uhh... how do I say this? Aged? Might need to rethink how you see them, not that America is any better. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wahlert Racism

It's literally being reported by every major news outlet in Eastern Iowa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.7.9 (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to find a reliable source to support the information you want to add. If you're not sure how to correctly cite a source you can ask for help at the help desk. If you are able to find a good source and decide to add that material back to the article please leave out the commentary calling the school an "abortion." Adding personal opinions like that isn't appropriate. Squeakachu (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding image for acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney?

What happened if the article was added File:21st Century Fox logo.svg and why Selena Gomez songs adding a image "File:21st Century Fox logo.svg" on Wikipedia. 110.139.151.100 (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I removed the information about Disney buying Fox from a few articles because it didn't have anything to do with the subjects of those articles. Squeakachu (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that added File:21st Century Fox logo.svg on page Lose You to Love Me, Taki Taki (song) and Rare (Selena Gomez album) on Wikipedia. and it's says:

Disney completed acquisition of 21st Century Fox, an American mass media company founded in 2013.

Sunrise dam edit

Hi,

You messaged with me about an edit about sunrise dam, that wasn't me, and my account here is blocked as i only use my phone without an account to edit things but this isn't my editing, just to let you know 139.130.248.118 (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unaweza saidia kuandika histori ya Mtandao wa JamiiTalk na historia ya Mwanzilishi wake?

Habari, Je, unaweza anzisha Mada kuhusu JamiiTalk na Mwanzilishi wake (kasomi) kwa lugha ya kingereza.

Maana naona historia imeandikwa kwa Kiswahili Tu.

Saidia kuandika kwa kingereza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.249.103.144 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Google translate has translated this correctly, you appear to be asking for help in writing an article in English. I'm not the best person to ask, since I don't have much experience writing article content. Even if I did have that experience I still don't think I could really help, since I don't believe the subjects you're asking about meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Squeakachu (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beginner are you joking?

I have a doctorate in early American history with 5 other advanced degrees. How many degrees do you have? 50.102.147.20 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None which are relevant to the subject of Johnny Appleseed. Why do you ask? Squeakachu (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milady de Winter

Hello,

I usually contribute on the french WP. An anonymous IP tries to add the first name of Laurence to the name of this fictional character on WP in several languages (spanish and italian in particular). As we check on the French WP, the name of Laurence does not appear on the whole Dumas novel. This looks like a spam to a Facebook page.

Thank you for your help v_atekor (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the name Laurence appears incorrect. I can't find any reference to such a name online except for sources that appear to have copied our article. I will add the article to my watchlist. Squeakachu (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gruden edit

Hello,

Being homophobic is very clearly an example of wrongthink. That's why I said he committed wrongthink. Please advise why Wikipedia is defending homophobia in any way shape or form by censoring a constructive sentence that properly contextualized Gruden's indefensible homophobic speech.

Thanks. 73.142.157.77 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongthink is an alt-right buzzword describing a supposedly true idea or opinion which is being ignored or suppressed by tyrannical communists. It's conspiracist gibberish. Since I can see that you are an ardent defender of the downtrodden, I'm certain you were unaware of all the implications of the term, and you'll agree that implying that there is any truth to the hateful way he talked about vulnerable minorities is totally unacceptable for our article. Squeakachu (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Model Congress Article

Hey there,

This Wikidepia page is heavily edited by students who participate in Model Congress and there is some genuinely correct information there. Editing the article in the New York section is a tradition of current and past Model Congress participants. By taking away their fun edits, you are inadverdintly sucking away any joy they have left. Everything they add is true although some of it is hyperbolic.

Best, 2600:4040:9518:2600:B5D7:6309:1CE9:42F1 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Study invitation

Hey @Squeakachu, thanks for patrolling edits and reverting vandalism! I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power recent change filters, Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandal tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Why did you remove my f1 edit. I dont think it was harmfull. I dont want to start beef i only want to see your point on thing. Cheers StinkiFard (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the entries on that list are real people. I don't believe that a fictional character belongs there. Squeakachu (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin lasagna

change the style of play back to lasagna has many layers to his game or I'm going to cry 2A00:23C5:3103:6C01:B073:864A:C6C3:294A (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 vaccination in the United States

Good day, Squeakachu. What leads you to believe my "last edit" was "less than neutral". I'm just trying to provide information in an unbiased manner, here. I don't think you have grounds for doing what you did and regard it as a poor use of my time to have to defend such a strange charge. 73.55.138.35 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing remotely unbiased about commentary like this:
Biden suddenly took up a report which was discovered to be from a biased organization whose very name pre-supposed malicious intent among the people it sought to profile
Biden went on to make further remarks joining the organization in inflaming fears of conspiracy and prejudicial hostility towards the individuals' guilt
Stick to the sources and do not inject your personal opinion or analysis. Squeakachu (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right. What grounds do you have declaring those edits to have nothing remotely unbiased about them, and I will try to understand what the matter is with the ones in the article and the ones in the other related articles as well. What are your matters of concern in the gross inaccuracies by way of the interpretations you've chosen to draw from my changes to the COVID-19 vaccination in the United States#July 2021 article section: July 2021 that you allege distort the truthful reporting that that section of the article and its sources provide?
I don't understand either why you think I've misused or failed to bring outside sources in appropriately. For example, the definition of "hate speech" doesn't require a source; it's a very commonly-used term. 73.55.138.35 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I don't have time to be taken away from things, if you're not authorized to actually remove me from editing the article. I can give you another day or so to tell me to what you object, but eventually we have to move on. 73.55.138.35 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well.
Biden suddenly took up a report which was discovered to be from a biased organization whose very name pre-supposed malicious intent among the people it sought to profile, used it without naming it and proceeded to leverage the Presidential office to secure and confirm the targeted attack by that organization upon the individuals mentioned there.
The linked sources do not describe the Center for Countering Digital Hate that way. Nor do they say anything about securing and confirming an attack (whatever that means) against any individuals. It says that he walked back an attack on Facebook.
The report suggested that approximately twelve social media users on Facebook were responsible for an astounding 60% of vaccine misinformation, all the while the concept "misinformation" that they attempted to subject to such news reports was of doubtful application to the field of journalism generally, with respect to both identifying and quantifying individual cases, and Biden made a series of alarming remarks with respect to what could be regarded as a potential conspiracy, as well as the culpability of the individuals, proven guilty in no court of any kind
"Astounding" is unnecessary sensationalism. The remainder of the quote is totally unsupported by the linked sources. They say nothing about the applicability of the concept of misinformation to journalism, or conspiracies, or the courts.
Far from being individuals hiding some shadowy conduct by exploiting their status as private individuals
Editorializing. Source doesn't say the misinformation is a conspiracy.
one of the persons Biden accused mentioned in the report was Kennedy family member Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Not mentioned by the CNBC source, and not especially relevant.
Biden went on to make further remarks joining the organization in inflaming fears of conspiracy and prejudicial hostility towards the individuals' guilt
Sources say nothing about inflaming conspiracy fears or prejudicial hostility.
I am not able to remove you, or anyone else, from this article or any other. I am not an administrator, just a regular editor. If you disagree with my revert I suggest you ask for a second opinion at the NPOV noticeboard. Squeakachu (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I see on my talk page now doesn't match my recollection, but it does match the description you just provided. This is strange to me, because just recently I received a block which suddenly disappeared long before the length of time that was marked on it had elapsed.
Which serves to preface my observation that I didn't ask you to help my understanding of the reason for what you said motivated your rollback by criticizing a series of particular examples in my edit you didn't like and ignoring what I specifically pointed out: that definitions don't need sources; I asked you to assist by generalizing so as to briefly explain why and in what sense you found it not just biased, but taking shape through content that had "nothing remotely unbiased about" it.
What you did instead guaranteed more work for myself should I have happened to not have been able to detect and refute the pattern of game-playing responses to which the explanations for your rollback belonged.
There's more to be detected by way of that type of behavior from a brief inspection of your reply, I might add. Supposedly we're not here to interfere with the work of other people just because we happen to find the material politically charged on an alignment that doesn't suit our tastes, but that's exactly what you seem to be doing.
I'm paying attention to what you have to offer. But game-playing is a sign of bad-faith editing, and I'm not going to participate in a discussion over the appropriateness of my material when you impose that as the framework in which it is to be discussed, because it would place me in the role of co-operating with a hypocritical mockery of my labors.
So please try again. What grounds do you have for declaring those edits to have "nothing remotely unbiased about" them. You mentioned "sensationalism" all while providing a sensational depiction of them and in their isolation, taking them piece by piece. Is that an appropriate way to begin the criticism of another's reporting from sources? It might help if you state to yourself the first thing that comes to your mind when you see the descriptive phrase you wrote, and if it's a personal bias of your own, you might want to reconcile it with the big picture of what you're trying to accomplish through your criticism of my edits. 73.55.138.35 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's anything to be gained from further discussion of this between the two of us. You can't convince me that your edits were neutral, and I apparently can't convince you that they were not neutral. So, I repeat my previous suggestion: Get a second opinion at the NPOV noticeboard. Squeakachu (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you can't accommodate me. Best wishes. 73.55.138.35 (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite understand who you think you are. Why do you have an NSA secure identity, you speak as though you have expertise in the dialogue of negotiation, and yet you your handle isn't just juvenile; it's infantile. Pikachu is a Japanese cartoon for toddlers.
Let's take one single example: What entitles you to purport that you can't understand the signification of a simple phrase like "secure and confirm a [targeted] attack" if you took steps to gain your own coded "secure identity", like you must have?
With regard to the credence of its attack, this internet publication isn't worthy of it, for the very quality of its chosen name, of which you made complaint in your own words for it having served as an attribute of some of my writing, "sensationalism", and after which you made instruction to see that it was moderated (The Center for Countering Digital Hate?), and so likewise, how does the publication's opposition not also rise to the level of an "attack" through the direct association of that same "sensational" use of speech?
So how does President Biden's repetition of the story while assuming responsibility for a task belonging to a Presidential role, addressing a member of the media, not "confirm and secure" an otherwise discreditable story from a source in which "sensationalism" serves as a quality of its chosen name, while "leveraging his office" as the means of accomplishing this elevation?
Why do I need to convince you of what must be obvious to all but you? How did you manage to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what bias would be, and why must that lack of bias not be only absent from the point of view of my contributions but my intentions as well:
You can't convince me that your edits were neutral...
because that's certainly not the criteria for contributing to Wikipedia; rather, it's good faith.
What entitles any censor's office-holder to suddenly close their office upon meeting a refutation of such matters as points of fact used as the basis of their judgment or criteria used as the basis of their interpretation and suddenly proclaim, "There's nothing I can do." It amounts to an abandonment of their own office.
Would you please either abandon this section of the article, re-introduce your objections with a more rational perspective or re-answer in some responsive way? 2601:2C3:867F:D2B0:152D:F523:651:6B0 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a committed identity requires no special knowledge. Anyone may do so by following the instructions here. In my case, I started using one after receiving a notification that there had been multiple failed attempts to log in to my account from a new device. Since I knew it wasn't me, I reasoned that someone was trying to gain access to my account (in retrospect it was probably just a troll trying to be a nuisance, but it made me nervous) and decided to take measures to ensure I could regain my account if it did end up being compromised.
Neutrality is in fact one of the criteria for contributing to Wikipedia. It's one of the Five Pillars, and we have an extensive page about the Neutral point of view policy. I have not suggested, and do not now suggest, that you are acting in bad faith. I don't think you are trying to intentionally damage Wikipedia, I just think your edit didn't comply with the NPOV policy.
If you believe that the neutrality of your edit is obvious to all but me, then I again invite you to seek a second opinion at the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Wikipedia runs on consensus. If, as I believe, consensus can't be reached between the two of us, then the solution is to ask uninvolved editors to weigh in. Squeakachu (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please quit stalling and tell me what your problem is or leave me the hell alone? You didn't read my reply again, did you? Or you would seen my clear admonition that objected to your insistence that I have neutral intentions by which you can dither endlessly on the nuances of What I Did, rather than what actually appears on the printed page. You're obviously conflicted in some way, so I'll tolerate you taking the time you need to read what I wrote, and I promise not to blast you, but you've got to tell me the parts to which you object, or you don't have a leg on which to stand. 73.55.138.35 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you what my problem is: I don't believe your edit complied with the NPOV policy. The wording of your edit was not supported by the sources, and appeared instead to reflect your personal opinions. I understand that you don't accept this explanation, but it's the only one I can give. Squeakachu (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what you don't seem to realize is you're not taking steps to draw a distinction between your own unsecured beliefs, otherwise known as opinions, with respect to the notion of which you've convinced yourself: that I'm advancing opinions, in fact, personal, particular opinions, in the place of factual matters.
Please allow me to raise a point of clarification before we proceed.
States of willingness like indignation, which has to do with our willingness to tolerate a turn of events, or repulsion, which has to do with our willingness to tolerate a present danger to our personal boundaries aren't necessarily personal in the sense of particular to us.
Such states are personal, but they may apply to "every person belonging to a class" like a class called "citizen" to which a person might belong.
After now, I do not expect you to suddenly declare a state of willingness I might express in my accounts as though it presupposes that it's particular to me. It may very well express a willingness I'm undertaking to express on behalf of others, not particular to me, simply from my being a representative example of those others or that class myself.
In short, I would stipulate that my expressions of states of willingness may be personal, but in fact that "personalness" does not presuppose that they are "particular to me".
They may very well be non-neutral expressions for other reasons, for example, from a non-neutrality with respect to others, present in the active interests of the whole class, but not from the mere fact that they take on the quality of "personalness", because you opposed the idea of neutrality to the particularity of "personalness" while refraining to indicate a specific sense or signification in which the opposition would not hold, that of the case of my expressing states of willingness while implying that that state indicates all members of a particular class to which I belong.
Do you understand this stipulation? 2601:2C3:867F:D2B0:152D:F523:651:6B0 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go away. If you decide to take my advice and seek a second opinion I would appreciate it if you'd notify me of the discussion, but please do not post on my talk page again otherwise. Squeakachu (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, that sounded rather personal to me. Is there any way I can help you apply common sense to your mistaken rollback decision before I go? 2601:2C3:867F:D2B0:152D:F523:651:6B0 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parental abuse by children

I reverted your use of rollback on Parental abuse by children. I've been watching that guy for a while, and he does seem to be doing his best to improve the article in good faith. Styx (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Styx & Stones. I wasn't originally intending to use a tool for that. I intended to edit it manually and leave a more detailed edit summary but got sidetracked with something else and kind of forgot what I was doing with this one when I came back to it. Some of their wording changes were ok, but otherwise those edits were not an improvement. Their changes to the 1st paragraph of the "Introduction" section are redundant, they removed refs, incorrectly changed the names of authors of some of the remaining refs, added a citation that isn't related to the article subject, and added what looks to me like a spam link at the end. Squeakachu (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your advert [not] here

When you see an edit like the one you reverted here with a corporate or promotional username, you can report them to usernames for administrator attention. The user's been blocked now. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always forget about UAA. Thanks for the reminder. Squeakachu (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belal Muhammad

Belal 'Remember The Decision' Muhammad (born July 9, 1988) is an American professional mixed martial artist who currently competes in the Welterweight division of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). A professional competitor since 2012, he has also competed for Bellator and Titan FC. As of October 24, 2023, he is #48 in the UFC welterweight rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewski30 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...And? Squeakachu (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confused as to why you took down a legit wiki page I created with sources for no reason

Why? 130.113.109.175 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is regarding Jovan Popovic. I didn't take it down for no reason. I restored the redirect because there weren't any independent sources to indicate that the subject is notable. Squeakachu (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoey - Sources

Hello, I'm Squeakachu.

I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Drinking from shoes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Squeakachu (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Squeakachu, Matt and I were both there for this event, I have not heard of anyone in Australia performing a Shoey prior to this date. We were friend's with professional surfers who then started spreading the "shoey". A number of other friend's were also there for this event who can attest. Shall I gather signed and sworn testimony for the event?

Is a lot of history not based on the word of others? I could write the story in a book and publish it, would it then be considered a reliable source?

What would I need to do to turn this into a reliable source? Thanks, Greg 156.44.157.163

Hi Greg. If you wrote a book and got it published by a serious publisher (self-published stuff won't cut it) that might be usable, but the ideal source for Wikipedia purposes is an independent source. For example, if your claims were described and supported in a good quality news source. Squeakachu (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Squeakachu!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wan it add only information

I want to add information about how to get paid characters of free fire free 37.111.177.239 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2601:48:c600:7310:699f:ae4:48a:fc7e

Hi, could you, if possible convince the IP user @2601:48:c600:7310:699f:ae4:48a:fc7e with explanations of WP:BLP before the article Kenneth Hawkinson devolves into an edit war? Considering that you'd be far more better in doing that. AlphaBetaGamma (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Squeakachu"