User talk:JPxG/Archive2

Hi, you reverted my edits for Thomas D. Waterman because they were "not neutral." My purpose for deleting the information which was cited is that it is not neutral and instead seems to provide political speculation. Particularly, footnotes 8^[1] and 9^[2] cite to blog-style opinion pieces which are not fact-checked and do not cite any sources. I understand your concern with me deleting the material as it is "sourced" but it is pretty clear these sources are not reliable. Not sure how else to go about removing the material as it is simply not supported anywhere reliable. I also am unfamiliar with how this talk page works so sorry if I have done anything incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D607:8500:597D:8978:C66:6415 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not JPxG but chiming in because I've also reverted your edits. Sources cited are thoroughly reliable. Michael Gartner is a living legend--a former president of NBC News and Pulitzer Prize winner--who owns and reports in Cityview, a newspaper (not a blog) in Des Moines now that he is semi-retired. Bleeding Heartland is a blog but Laura Belin is a professional journalist (formerly a foreign correspondent in Russia, Ph.D. from Oxford) and is nationally recognized as one of the state's premier political journalists. Des Moines sadly has virtually no original reporting on politics from the old traditional outlets due to the ongoing collapse of the Register. For what it's worth, the Register is also cited; issues around Waterman's conduct and the bill were well-publicized and certainly newsworthy. And I have now added an additional source from the Cedar Rapids Gazette backing up Belin's reporting. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I would once again like to respectfully disagree. While I am not questioning the qualifications of the authors themselves, it is clear from each article by Belin and Gartner that the claim that the actions were a “power grab” by Waterman are unsupported. The Belin article cites the Gartner article for support and both articles clearly state none of the justices were reached for comment and neither explains where this information is coming from. This indicates political speculation rather than fact. I understand however, that Wikipedia may be averse to removing them since they are technically “sources.” What is most concerning is the information as it appears now lacks context. The Register article indicates that it is not against Iowa law for judges to discuss legislation with lawmakers when the legislation concerns the judiciary; this is supported by Rule 51:3:2 which permits judges to discuss legislation which relates to “the legal system.” Additionally, while the Gartner article speculates a power grab, there is no subsequent information reflecting that the interim Chief Justice was David Wiggins and the chosen Chief Justice after that is now Susan Christensen. The Gazette article clearly states that six of the seven justices denied recusal and it is withing each Justice’s discretion to do so and that Chief Justice Cady also denied any reason for recusal but acknowledged that as the current Chief justice, he had a personal interest in the legislation (per the register article). Yet, the information as it stands attempts to imply that Justice Waterman did something nefarious by recusing and discussing this legislation. As it stands, my concern is that the language is intended to unfairly imply impropriety rather than state complete facts. Wikipedia policy states that information should be removed which is poorly sourced and has the potential to be libelous. I believe this information qualifies. Presently, I have added sources to reflect this additional information and reflect the material that is cited but perhaps a separate moderator can review to confirm that this is a fair course of action? It seems selective to include this one topic which has not been supported by subsequent facts or mainstream reporting (additionally, there is no “collapse” of the Register, which continues to report on Iowa politics).

Thank you2604:2D80:D607:8500:597D:8978:C66:6415 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop borderline-vandalizing an article with content violating WP:NPOV. The Register article does not support your legal analysis, which appears to be based on WP:NOR. The Gartner article attributes the opinion to Gartner to comply properly with attributing and specifying biased statements (i.e. the article does not claim the action was a "power grab" simpliciter, merely that a notable journalist characterized it as such). The information about the passing of Justice Cady and his successors is irrelevant to the article on Waterman. Neither Waterman nor anyone associated with him has ever contested the reporting cited that I can tell, let alone that the controversy exists (all this article reports). If you find such reporting, feel free to add it, as it may be important context. Given your repeated issues with properly editing and lack of history, I also have to wonder if you are WP:COI.

It's also irrelevant to this discussion, but the Register's ongoing mass layoffs/circulation problems/etc. and the exit of its most notable political reporters to Iowa Capital Dispatch have severely curtailed the amount of political news it publishes. Iowalaw2 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Iowalaw2. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia and am struggling with how this all works, as I stated above! I did not know Wikipedia had a conflict of interest policy and after reviewing the page you cited I agree I do have a conflict and will stop making edits. I do still believe the content violates Wikipedia's requirements for Biographies of Living Persons and would appreciate if someone else could review or help me out on if there is some other page I should post on. My apologies if I am incorrect about this policy or how Wikipedia works!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D607:8500:597D:8978:C66:6415 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your work is wrong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Sarkhosh (biliard players)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.ct (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a long-term cross-wiki vandal. I could even envision nuking the AFD as part of the vandalism. But charitably, could you re-open it so I can admin-close it as delete/speedy-abuse? DMacks (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Oh boy, doing that NAC was about at the limits of my wheelhouse. If you link me to something that tells me what to do, I'll do it, though. jp×g 15:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. User: Izno took care of it. What I can offer you for now is a note that the pinger only works for new lines of content, not for changes to existing. I saw your note here because I watchlisted. If you forget to ping, need to remove (in one edit) and then re-add with ping (in separate edit) or something like that. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grabilla on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained the edit. --166.48.219.22 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi - you sent me the following(inaccurate) message

"In Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hard power without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jp×g 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)"

This is wholly inaccurate - I did describe why I removed the content. It's a little frustrating to follow the instructions to the letter, to then have a moderator second guess you without reading the notes provided or the original content... I say this because there is no way you read my change description, along with the deleted text, and decided to put it back. Anyone who speaks English as a first, second, or third language would find the suggested edits (deletions) unintelligible. Have the original poster clean it up or leave it removed - this should not have required my attention twice. Additionally - your note could be clearer. I included an explanation - for you to say it was inadequate requires more qualification on your end, not mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWDeGraw (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@TWDeGraw: I agree that most of the stuff you removed was dreck and written quite badly; the reason I reverted your edit was because it removed a citation (and the reference it was cited to). I'd be fine with sharply reducing the size of that section otherwise. jp×g 06:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi.I removed content about Abdürrahim Özer because he is not a academic or historian. He is just instructor who teaches in international studies. So he is not worthwhile about Alan Mikhael. I removed second paragraph because it is repetation of upper paragraphs. And brings nothing new compared to upper paragraphs. And there is bias problem in this topic. Because of succes of Alan Mikhael there is lot's of hatred beginned. Alan Mikhael's Books are in number one in Best Sellers in Turkey History section of Amazon books. And He bring new look for Ottoman history. And old guards of ottoman history(Cornell Fleischer, Cemal Kafadar,Sanjay Subrahmanyam) have"faintly malicious envy"(https://www.dartmouth.edu/~crossley/comments_7.html) about success of Alan Mikhael. So their negative feedback is worth to read it. But we read their feedback in upper paragraphs. And writing their negative feedback again and again is create toxic biased atmosphere. So i deleted some repetive parts. Thanks for reading my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahTurkistani (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@AbdullahTurkistani: It looks like edits since then have added significant amounts of material to the article, including material that purports to address NPOV concerns (not being an expert in the subject, I can't comment on whether they do). Hopefully this is to your satisfaction, but if not, I would be happy to request a third opinion or open an RfC for you. jp×g 05:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

New suspeciois anti-Croat account at it again [HERE] undoing your revert of theirs. Thought you should know. They seem like a potential puppet. OyMosby (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems sus. Thanks for looking out. jp×g 05:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I did provide the reason for the redirect but now I clarified further more. The content was not removed but it was moved to a subsection of Postmedia news and a citing was listed there as well as to what Postmedia News is in relation to Postmedia Network. Moreover some content in the history of Postmedia News was not sourced and was in relation to a different newspaper and was not the history of Postmedia. Hope this clarification helps. If you feel there are any missing content please add it directly to the Postmedia News subsection of Postmedia Network page. Thanks (ArctcBanana (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

@ArctcBanana: Looking through the revision history of these articles, it's tough to see what is going on -- it looks like there was some copy-paste merging or something(?). At any rate, apologies if my revert was in error. jp×g 05:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Was a mistake on my end I did a Partial revert and removed the one that the source does not state it, as genocide rape.7645ERB (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@7645ERB: No worries, it's fine :^) jp×g 05:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

>>> Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. <<<

Actually all i did was remove the "i" and the "u". (i.e. making them sh*t and f*ck...which i think you will agree still makes the point of what she said obvious)

this is a public site open to children as well as adults like us, hence my desire to keep the place up to reasonable standards of "decency" before the real government censors get involved and shut it down for this sort of BS reason claiming "indecency" and that it "corrupts our children"...perhaps you're to young to remember that c*nt Tipper Gore and the "trials" of various bands including Twisted Sister and Judas Priest? it may be on youtube somewhere.

This is a site to which i have donated on several occasions and i believe i have the right to try to protect it's existence. so i think you should accept my minor edits. FOF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.28.245 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@76.14.28.245: I see where you're coming from, but this issue has been debated for decades and consensus is pretty clear. I don't look forward to the upcoming Section 230 clusterf*cks any more than you do, but it's doubtful that individual instances of swear words are going to contribute to Wikipedia being censored (and at any rate, I think Jimbo would have pretty good odds against Tipper Gore if they both went on Oprah, viz. Jello Biafra giving her the ol' smackdown on said show in 1990). I do appreciate you looking out, though. jp×g 05:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

You left me a message about removing content without leaving justification on the 'David Argyle' page, but I did - I said 'Removed content in breach of Wikipedia's policy on defamation and poor sources' - the entire Controversy section on that page that I removed didn't adhere to the policy stated on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons - in particular, 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.'

Hope that helps :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:2fed:b400:bd98:1afb:7080:285d (talk) 03 November 2020 (UTC)

@2a02:c7d:2fed:b400:bd98:1afb:7080:285d: The policy on biographies of living persons does not in any way say that content substantiated by multiple reliable sources is forbidden. Moreover, I'm not sure how the section you removed would even qualify as defamatory, since it ends with The allegations were rejected by an independent investigation, which concluded there was no evidence of misconduct. This conclusion was upheld after an appeal. which, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I think the main implication of this is that there was no evidence of misconduct. This seems like the opposite of defamation. jp×g 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

14 images in a 559 words article doesn't makes sense in anyhow, I left 4 images what seems more balanced although generous in quantity of images to me. I can see that you want to provoke a editing war with a "User vs IP user" scenario, then have your version and that is a little unfair to say the least. I repeat, please, take it in a bit more serious way, spamming of random images doesn't makes any sense. --84.127.120.13 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@84.127.120.13: Okay, I can make a section on the talk page and get a third opinion or open a request for comment if you'd like -- I am perfectly happy to accept that the images are unnecessary, but I don't think that an article being short means that galleries are unjustified. jp×g 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to Tutar Sagdiyev?

The linked article is a compilation of praise for her acting performance in the film from random Twitter users. No where in the linked article does it state that Cohen is lobbying for her to be nominated for an Oscar, which is what it supposedly is a reference for. That line is entirely unsourced and needs to be removed from the article.

Considering I explained that clearly I can only assume you are editing in bad faith.

63.69.65.83 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This explanation would have been a very convincing edit summary for removing a claim and its associated source; the edit summary for this I saw was, instead, "removed formatting error". Falsely describing changes in an edit summary generally causes them to look suspicious. Thanks for explaining the removal. jp×g 20:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the confusion. If you check, the edit before that included the summary explanation but then I realized I had accidentally missed part of the reference and had to make a second edit to clean that up, hence removing the formatting error I had created.

I should have made clearer note of that in my second edit summary. That's on me. Thank you!

63.69.65.83 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@63.69.65.83: No problem! Happy editing. jp×g 21:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note this dif. For the sake of transparency I'm an old and almost entirely inactive editor; I saw something I felt was pretty glaring, and decided to clip it - for the reason I mentioned here - and decided I'd rather not be subjected to the buildup of messages and mentions that are likely on my user page when all I wanted to do was a little edit, so I remained IP. I will be promptly returning to inactivity and do not intend to continue this conversation further in any venue, but I did want to propose a word of caution to you. While editing that article, immediately upon learning there was an objection to my edit, I went to talk and defended it. You did not engage in talk and instead templated an IP. In this case it doesn't matter. Because I really don't want to get into it. But there are plenty of IP editors with significant experience editing Wikipedia. I am far from unique in that respect. I'd kindly suggest you should consider checking article talk first in the future. Have a very nice day. 24.137.118.155 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@24.137.118.155: After doing a little more thorough reading on Scruton and his body of work, I stand by the revert (although I, similarly, do not have much interest in disputing the issue either way); that said, I agree that it would have been wiser to consult the talk page first. Apologies for my brusqueness. jp×g 21:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at List of lists of lists of lists of lists. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zoozaz1 talk 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: Don't you think "hoax" is a bit of a stretch to describe a redirect? You should nominate it at WP:RfD if you think it's dumb. jp×g 19:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

JPxG, It was previously deleted 3 years ago under G3, although I am not sure of the content of that article. Either way, you can contest it if you disagree with the nomination. Zoozaz1 talk 19:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: I'm aware of CSD policy, but thank you. In the future, please try to read the text of warning templates before you use semi-automated tools that post them on people's talk pages, and consider whether they are in any way relevant to the thing you're attempting to say (if I were not familiar with the way Twinkle processes CSD nominations, this would have parsed as an extremely aggressive message). jp×g 19:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

JPxG, Yes, the message was certainly harsher than I would have phrased it had I written it manually. Zoozaz1 talk 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear, in the article "magnetic stirrer", the sentence "The limited size of the bar means that magnetic stirrers can only be used for relatively small experiments, of 4 liters or less" is not adequate to the actual technologies. We have big and serious worldwide manufacturers that produces units to mix up to 150L without any difficulty. I have personal experience with this unit and big customers that uses it without complain. For these big and famous manufacturers, Even small magnetic stirrers can mix up 20L of water easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_stirrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laborwiki (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Laborwiki: I mean, I can believe that this is true -- it's just that there wasn't any source provided for the claim. If there's nothing cited to back up a statement, anyone can just say anything; additions to articles should adhere to WP:V. jp×g 20:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi JPxG, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 20:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! jp×g 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I have done something stupid, and I expect that someone will eventually show up here to ask me about it, so here is the basic deal:

There was a user a few weeks ago, Wikiwriter700 (now indeffed) who was mass-editing hundreds of articles about websites and social networks and removing seemingly random content with the summary "remove unknown parameter from infobox". While they were, indeed, typically removing Alexa statistics from {{infobox website}} (which was removed as a valid parameter from the infobox per an RfC), they would also aggressively remove all mention of Alexa statistics from articles, among other highly questionable things, in edits spaced no more than a couple minutes apart for hours at a time, while using deceptive edit summaries... in between suspicious UPE-like edits... for which they were eventually indeffed. Afterwards, I started going through their contributions to find and revert the most suspect of their edits. (which I managed to get through a few hundred of). I mostly forgot about this dreary task until today, when I saw similar edits coming from 12.183.20.124, all of which were the exact same thing (robotically removing Alexa parameters while diligently performing small updates to Genworth Financial's article). I filed a SPI. But while looking over their contributions, I noticed that the blocking admin had reverted every single one. Which got me to thinking -- if the thing to do in this situation was just roll them all back, I might as well go do that for Wikiwriter700. So I did (this is the stupid part).

A few minutes into doing so, ferret reverted a couple of my reverts, and messaged me to ask what the hell I was doing, and to stop. So I stopped. After some conversation, I concluded that what I did was probably not "the thing to do" (since I guess having deprecated parameters in the infobox actually clogs up its maintenance category). While I'm willing to go back over and review all of my reverts, ferret said that they were going to just see if a bot could be run to remove the deprecated parameters, and Primefac agreed to do it, so in all likelihood this is a resolved non-issue. However, ferret mentioned that people might see these edits on their watchlists and become baffled, so in the name of clarity I will provide the explanation anyway. jp×g 20:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Confirming the above. Reverting of Wikiwriter700 enmass was problematic, while the reverting of the IP would generally have fallen under DENY/evasion cleanup. Primefac has been asked to run his bot to appropriately and cleanly remove the depreciated Alexa parameter now. That should resolve all this. -- ferret (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

And just also confirming that I'll be running my bot to remove that param at some point in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop treating me like a troll. I try to make constructive edits only! 50.232.92.83 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@50.232.92.83: The main reason I reverted your edit was because your edit summary was "removed false information", but most of the content you deleted was cited. Whether it was cited to reliable sources, I can't say for sure (I'm not familiar with sourcing guidelines on that subject) -- but as a general rule, the removal of sourced material usually requires some convincing reason (or more authoritative sources that dispute the claim). I'm not saying your edits are shitty, or that you're wrong, but this is something in particular I tend to pick up on when I see it. jp×g 04:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you introduce jokes into articles again, as you did at User:JPxG, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The user JPxG has not made 10,000 edits -- please do not introduce deliberate factual errors into userpages. jp×g 01:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

He clearly has, as of this diff. Please check his edit count before making claims such as this. If you continue to edit the page tendentiously, I will report you to AN/I. jp×g 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Hooks Island at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. jp×g 03:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kashmir Valley on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It was either that or the good humor badge. Thanks for your help there. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Thanks! jp×g 03:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

		New article List of elections, 1701–1800 reviewed
		Greetings. I wanted to thank you for creating List of elections, 1701–1800 and let you know I marked it as reviewed. I hope you continue to expand it. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Thanks! jp×g 03:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Referenced revert Hey there, I saw you recently reverted an edit I did on the Houses that October Built 2 page because you felt I did not, ' adequately explain why'. In fact, I added a comment to the talk page of the user who was the originator of the changes I reverted, explaining the reason for the revert. If you examine the history of that Wikipedia page in particular, I think you'll notice a trend of user(s) from a very similar ip address range '2601:600:' and '2603:3023' (both Seattle Comcast IP addresses) continually making edits to astro turf that particular page by removing negative content (they have constantly removed the Rotten Tomatoes critic score, which is low, and tried to replace it with the audience, which is higher, despite the critic score obviously being the accepted Rotten Tomatoes score on Wikipedia. They in fact, also, wouldn't even accept compromise edits where I tried to include both scores. ) I have tired to address this issue with this user/user(s) many times via their talk page, but have yet to receive any reply from them. I know we are supposed to assume good faith on Wikipedia, but because of all the proceeding events, I believe this user is editing the article in bad faith and biased way.

I have since reverted your revert of my edit. In this state, I feel as though the current review section provides a fair, complete, balanced, and accurate portrayal of the films critical response. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. Best. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'll reply to this here and on the talk page for the article. I am looking through the history of this article and... it really looks like a gong show. The person who keeps taking out the negative reviews seems to be clearly in the wrong here (although I can't confidently say this is astroturfing -- sometimes people will just do this out of extreme love for a movie). If you were the person who kept adding them back in, I support that and agree with your edits (Rotten Tomatoes is pretty well-established as a citable source for movie reviews, as far as I'm aware). At any rate, the edit of yours I reverted was one where a whole (sourced) paragraph got gutted -- I'm not sure if the sources from it were reliable or not (I am not a scholar of horror movie criticism) but I don't think that it warranted removal. Someone making a bad edit doesn't usually render their other edits invalid. jp×g 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yo yo. Thanks for responding. I'm not sure if it's a matter of the sources being reliable or not per say, but simply a matter of the user/users in question just trying to load the article with as much praise and positive remarks as possible. This can clearly be seen in their edits regarding the Rotten Tomatoes score. The section that I in fact removed, was added by them in one of those series of additions / reverts that I got into with them. If positive reviews weren't already represented in that section, I wouldn't object to that user(s) additions, but as it stands, the section seems to provide a very fair and balanced detailing of the reception of the film, both positive and negative. I do not believe that the user loading the article with more positive reviews is doing this because they feel the reception section is lacking, or these reviews provide more balance or insight into the reception film, but rather, as I said both, it's just an attempt to load the article with as much praise and positive remarks as positive. This is based on all of their edits in the post, which seem to directly suggest someone trying to remove negative remarks of the film, and only include positive remarks. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I hope you don't mind me posting in this very old section, but I am the IP editor who made this post previously :) I'm sure you hardly remember this talk thread, if at all, but upon becoming more familiar with Wikipedia and editing, I can't help but feel compelled to apologize for my demeanor towards you on the article talk page. I was very emotional about this article for some reason, and because of this, I treated you in a less than charitable way, I think. Anyways. Thank you for being rather kind and patient in response to my stubbornness, and my apologies again :) Best ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThereWillBeTime: Ah, I don't mind at all. Thanks for swinging by! I've got no hard feelings about it. Shit happens... I hope you have a peaceful time editing :^) jp×g 03:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)