User talk:Schazjmd

Hello Schazjmd, thank you for deleting the duplicated section about Greenland. Did you read the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act? It is not restricted to "cash transaction", so could you please change the wording acoording to the bill? Thank you! L.T.Mido (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@L.T.Mido, you've already fixed it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, initialy I wasn't able to edit the article, suddenly I was..... L.T.Mido (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Schazjmd, apologies if my edits were harmful. I had them as British-American because Graham Nash is American. Darth RMB (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, @Darth RMB. We rely on how sources describe the band, not our own interpretations. Also, Nash was born in the UK; he visited the US on a Hollies tour and then later moved there, but wasn't an American when he was in the Hollies. Schazjmd (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Lita Ford when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Is not the Satires addressing the extreme excesses of the corrupt 1c AD Roman aristocracy?

It is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? not really about virtue and how not to do it?

And is that not basic philosophy (me/ thou/you/them)? Maybe a little less emotion and a touch more consideration? We do want to give readers a little help to explore allied articles, do we not not?

Perhaps you might like to add a better ==philosophy== to complete this unfinished article yorself? Timpo (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Timpo, nothing that you are saying here gives a reasonable context for the text that you added in your edit. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention The miller, his son and the donkey! This tale illustrates the distinction between truth (what is believed to be correct) and fact what is verifiably correct as well as the distinction between morality (emotional personal opinion) and ethics (conduct rationally deemed acceptable within a collective). It explains why democracy, social media and indeed Wikipedia is in danger from the likes of Anti-vaccine activism truth versus medically demonstrable (and thus rational) Scientific consensus, or indeed the growing preference for authoritarianism (playing the "blame game" and "papa knows best") rather than accepting personal responsibility for making democracy work in our daily lives. Being true to one's self perhaps requires that ethics imposes on children a cultural corset on personal morality first? - Freedom implies submission. My best wishes for your future, salutations, Timpo (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the copyvios. I just wanted to point out that the range of revisions in the revdel request should not include the revision where the copyvio was reverted as teh copyvio material is no longer present in that version. Not a big deal as its easy to spot when I'm reviewing the revisions, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning those up, @Whpq. Question: the "Request CV revdel" tool forces a selection of two diffs. I've been selecting the diff in which the copyvio edit was made and the diff in which it was reverted. Should I instead select the diff prior to the violation and then the diff in which it was made for the range? I want to do whatever's most helpful for you and the other admins. Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Duh, I just checked the documentation and it says You can uncheck the "Range?" checkbox to indicate that just the single revision in the "Start" column will be tagged for revdel, not the whole range from "Start" to "End". I'll start doing that going forward. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes to the latter. The revision where you reverted no longer has a copyvio, so it should not be included in the revdel. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Schazjmd. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if this sounds contentious, but why is IMDB not considered to be a reliable source? It’s linked on basically every television and movie related page under external links, and I’ve even seen pages using IMDB as a source. - coolgurl5555 🩷 (talk)(sign) (she/her) 23:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You can read the community consensus at WP:IMDB, hope that helps, @Coolgurl5555. Oh also, height only goes in the infobox if it is relevant to the person's notability (typically models and athletes or unusually tall/short people) so it really isn't appropriate for Fillion's infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! (I know my signature is really fucked up I’m actively trying to figure it out) style="color:#ffb6c1"- coolgurl5555 🩷 (talk)(sign) style="color:#bf73ea"(she/her) 23:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The cabal has decided that IMDB is populated by volunteer editors, and that their work is unreliable. It's their rule. Irony is not their strong suit. And maybe they have seen how it works here.

Like Find a Grave, which often is really the best source about final resting places. But I digress.

Good luck with your signature! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Will you also convert my basic citations to the San Diego Union/Tribune articles to url's also? I need help because I do not have access to the wiki news library and the reviewer wants them converted. I used multiple references for the same point because I did not know which ones would be able to be converted into url's and which one's would be considered sufficient. The ones that cannot be converted are likely to be the ones that I remove. Thank you for all of your help. Drafter. Emanresu0 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Emanresu0, the most critical sources (the ones that the bulk of the article rely upon) are (1) goldsea.com, (2) Spaulding in the San Diego Evening Tribune, (3) Showley in the San Diego Union, (4) Biberman in San Diego Daily Transcript, and (5) Novarro in Asia, Inc.. I was unable to find any of those sources online, sorry. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for trying. Can you insert the url for the other LA Times article and the New York Times article. I believe they are still reference #'s 8 and 9. That would save me the expense of going through the pay wall. Appreciatively, Drafter. Emanresu0 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. All you had to do for those two was a regular web search on the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks and allow me to clarify: You mean I just type the article title into my Google chrome browser? I thought the articles from this era were behind paywalls if they even existed in digitized form, but I did not try LA Times or New York Times, only the San Diego papers and the Asian magazines.

Do you know whether the Wiki news library has the San Diego Union or Tribune, San Diego Daily Transcript, or the Asia Inc articles, since I cannot get to them with a simple google Chrome search. The Union/Tribune is all behind paywall, the Daily Transcript doesn't exist, and I can't find the Asia Inc articles from this era. I ask because the reviewer wants me to insert the paywall url's to make it easier for cite checking, but if the wiki news library does not have access to the San Diego Union, I think that effort and expense would be a waste.

Also, do you know whether there is a way to upload pdf files of the articles for reviewer site checking when the url's are not available without paywall to get beyond this hurdle?

Thanks Emanresu0 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Emanresu0, yes, you just search on the article title using your browser. You likely won't be able to read the article, because both NYTimes and LATimes require a subscription, but that doesn't interfere with copying the URL for the news item.

I used the Wiki library to hunt for the San Diego and Asia sources and came up empty.

A pdf can be too easily faked.

You should be able to copy the newsbank url using these instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try. Emanresu0 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, I just tried your links. Paywalls come up on the LA Times and NY Times cites, although the LA Times cite allowed me to scroll through the article with the paywall there. The NY Times did not. And, for some reason the second LA Times article is no longer in the references. It was #9. And, what was #16 is no longer there and has an "error" code now. I didn't create these issues and could use help fixing them if you can help. Thanks again. Emanresu0 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

And, the second time I tried to read an LA Times article by typing the title of the article into my browser and getting a hit, the paywall came up and I could not see the text of the article at all. So, using those url's are not going to work unless wiki has access somehow that get the reviewers beyond the paywall. Do you or do they? Emanresu0 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I fixed my syntax error.

Yes, some websites require subscriptions. Providing the URL is still useful; the reader or reviewing editor may have a subscription, or may have access through their library or school, or the url may have been archived. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I want to thank you for your small fix on Locus magazine article. I wanted to ask you about similar thing, but it depends on if you are interested or not, and on your judgement. It is about Locus Award categories, like Best Horror Novel and others. On those categories, I found that the tables are, in my view, not well made or untidy. There are two major issues; the first one is about that in the "Winners" section there are multiple wikilinks for various writers, but most of them are duplicates. I wanted to apply MOS:DUPLINK rule as I think that only one link is enough, while others should be removed. This also applies to other links within references in the same section, for example "Shelf Awareness". There is my quote: "Removing several duplicate links per MOS:DUPLINK and other fixes". Then a quote from the user Michelangelo1992: "Disagree; per MOS:DUPLINK they can be included if helpful, including tables which are specifically listed as an exception". This are both from "Best Science Fiction Novel". A similar quote is from "Best Fantasy Novel" on his side: "Per MOS:DUPLINK, tables are an exception". I am not agreedable with this and is probably apparent violation from him. I think that most users apply to this rule when deleting duplicate wikilinks in one section if there is some redundancy. Another issue is about one thing that I initially did not know what a thing was, but now I know. It is about "sort tag" that was put in the tables. I thought that this addition made a section cluttered and untidy, and thus I tried to remove it. There is one part of my quote from "Best Fantasy Novel": "The page looked somewhat cluttered and a bit incomprehensible". The user Michelangelo1992 either did not know or he knew but ignored it. That "sort tag", as far as I know, was never put in some table for some other topics, like films, TV shows, video games, etc. and it seems that it does not exist this rule. Also I put an explanation in the edit summary, but only if there are some tricky problems that have to be resolved. If I put a simple solution, then I don't have to always explain in the summary, like simple grammar fixes. If you are interested, can you go to those pages, bring a judgement and reply to my question. If you think there were no signs of disruptive behavior and possible edit warring from that user, then I will retreat and not touch those articles. ~2026-72976-5 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @~2026-72976-5, and welcome.

It's true that MOS:DUPLINK allows additional wikilinks in (for example) tables. I think the reasoning there is that readers generally don't read through a table like they do narrative prose. They may be looking for a specific year or award or recipient, or whatever, but especially with long tables, it can be an impediment to have to search for an earlier entry of a name to get the link or type it in search yourself. So I don't think there's any harm done by providing readers with links to writer names each time they are listed in a table.

I wish I could help you with sort, but I only have the most basic table skills in wikitext, sorry. Editors at WP:TEAHOUSE will probably have better insight. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

For the tables… then fine, but outside of tables that is another story I think. Very well then, I will respect a decision despite not entirely agreeing with this. As for editors at WP:TEAHOUSE, I will try, but if I do it, maybe I will get the same reply from them. Anyway, thanks.

~2026-72976-5 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, @~2026-72976-5, I only meant in tables. In body text, just one wikilink per section is enough. (It used to be once per article, but not long ago the guidance was changed to per-section.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I may not be familiar with all standards, but I can't really see why my change in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agatha_Christie&oldid=1349899799 was, according to you, unsubstantiated by sources. I quoted the book I referred to, after all. Does a book only exist, once it is mentioned by a third party? Sounds absurd to me, but I could easily go on quoting German reviews of the book (they are gathered here: https://www.perlentaucher.de/buch/mithu-m-sanyal/antichristie.html; there is also a German wikipedia entry on the book: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichristie) but that seemed to me to go a bit too far. I'm not going to engage in an edit war, but what, pray, is the problem with mentioning a novel called "Antichristie" in the 'In popular culture' section of the article on Agatha Christie? Kaosmonaut (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, @Kaosmonaut. Generally, for "in popular culture" style information, there should be an independent source that supports its inclusion. Something existing isn't significant enough to mention. The guidance at WP:IPCV provides more discussion on it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! So, if I quoted 5+ reviews of a monograph, would that be enough to support its inclusion? Kaosmonaut (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

(to make myself clear: I have no axe to grind on this whole issue, do not represent the author in question or whatever, but was surprised by the alacrity a clearly relevant addition - the book was longlisted for the German equivalent to the Man Booker prize - was deleted with) Kaosmonaut (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

A single independent source is sufficient, preferably one that mentions Agatha Christie. Schazjmd (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)