User talk:Philotimo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey there, welcome to my talk page!

Philotimo, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Philotimo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Philotimo! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Poor quality page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Boudreau is not jewish stop the BS[edit]

Lou Boudreau is not jewish. cut the original research crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.220.38 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Unexplained”?[edit]

Hello. If I may ask, how exactly does this edit summary leave anything “unexplained”? I thought I’d adequately explained the edit, but I’d appreciate any suggestions on making it more clear. Thanks. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @96.8.24.95: since you removed both the archived and original reference links, it seemed that you only looked at the latter and didn't consider the former. I'll review it again though. I also appreciate the note. Philotimo (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, same user here, away from home. You’re right that I saw no reason to check the archive links, since the sources still seemed to be live and unchanged. Looking at them now, they are indeed unchanged, except for the PC Gamer article which inexplicably removed a paragraph about how The Stanley Parable could be hard to follow up. But this cut paragraph doesn’t have anything more to do with the cited content than the rest of these sources, all of which were written (and archived) before any details about the game were known. So I’m afraid I don’t understand the nature of your objection. How does archived pre-release coverage help us in discussing the then-unknown content of the game? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @151.132.206.250: I just moved them to the further reading section instead of their original placement in the article's body, which as you correctly note, doesn't necessarily work at present with the game's development. I still don't find it misleading to keep them, but I do agree flow and general understanding might increase without them. In the future, it's always preferable to save references by either rewriting content to incorporate them better, or move them to a bibliography or further reading section where they gives editors and readers the ability to use them at their discretion. I really appreciate your feedback and desire to make positive and constructive contributions. If you plan to continue editing like this long-term, it might be beneficial for you to create an account. Check out, WP:Why create an account?. If you've got more questions, please let me know. Philotimo (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, it's always preferable to save references …. Yes, which is why they were copied to the article’s talk page. I’m not sure why the ARG wasn’t discussed in the article, but if anyone wanted to add it, those refs seemed like they would be useful.
I’m still trying to understand what you meant about the archived vs original links; it sounded as if you expected the archive would have been updated with information about the game itself after release despite the sources themselves predating the game. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@151.132.206.250: it's more preferable to incorporate them into the article since most of us (users and readers) don't check talk pages (at least regularly) and keeping them in a bibliography or further reading section would enhance the page's quality. If you want to add it, go ahead. No, I'm aware it's unlikely they'd be updated but it's possible and sometimes they actual edit content out post publication plus the links do die over time. It's always good to check them before removing them. Philotimo (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly help[edit]

Hi, regarding your five undos on Humanistische Omroep - it's possible to undo multiple issues in one edit by opening the revision to revert back to and clicking edit+publish. Not that what you are doing is a major problem, just hope that this will help you Naleksuh (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Naleksuh: thank you for the note. I did know that, but I just wanted to review the edits individually before undoing them. I'll look into it though. Thanks again. Philotimo (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What edit "seemed like a test" exactly?[edit]

I just received a message about an edit that seemed like a test and has been reverted. I have no idea what that might be. Any insight you can share? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE: it means you didn't make sufficiently constructive edits, and they were deemed to be test like. 1.) most of them were fluffy; they didn't need to be drawn out like that 2.) your referencing was not in standard form 3.) it seemed like you should consider working on more minor and specific changes on your sandbox first before taking it to a main page. I hope this helps you! Philotimo (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm still not sure what this "test-like" thing means, and not sure I have much use for the "sandbox" thing. Here is what I have to say: I actually wrote the entire summary about his professional career several years ago, and just tonight saw that people had made some crappy changes that resulted in poor syntax and not capitalizing proper nouns, etc. Those changed segments were crappy. So I fixed them back to the original (and IMO, much better written) content. And looking at it again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you can identify any specific problems, I would be happy to chat about them. Otherwise, I would suggest we re-revert the summary back to the better version. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE:, 1.) please read WP:Citing sources; when you add your source, it wasn't in standard form as noted on WP:Citing sources--it gives you examples of how to properly build a citation 2.) keep fluff down; we don't need to just ramble on. If you can simplify your work, correct your reference, and roll it into one edit, I'll mend what needs to be changed after that. WP:Sandbox is a place to work on your edits without them going live on a main page. I hope this helps you out. Philotimo (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. A couple points from me: (1) I know how to properly cite things in Wikipedia, but I'm a bit confused because I don't remember adding any sources or citations to this article tonight. (2) As far as "fluff" and "rambling", everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the tone of the article is entirely consistent with print sports journalism, including professionally published sports encyclopedias. Sports encyclopedia entries are indeed written differently than Encyclopedia Britannica and the like. This isn't debatable. I don't intend this to be rude, but the fact that I have to explain this makes me suspect that you might not be the best person to be making these edits. The tone of my edits tonight is consistent with the rest of the section - I know, because I wrote it ALL - and moreover, it is consistent with the rest of the article. If you can write a better summary of Maravich's professional career - beginning to end, like I did - then you are welcome to do it. Otherwise, I suggest we go with my version, "fluff" and "rambling" and all. (I hope this comes across as forceful, but not intended to be rude. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE: it does appear you inserted a citation (hornetsreport.com). Ah, no. Please read, WP:About and WP:What Wikipedia is not. This is most definitely an encyclopedia with regards to writing and sourcing requirements. If you wrote most of it, great, but please review WP:Ownership of content. It's also necessary to sign your posts when commenting on talk pages and use indentation when applicable like on talk page threads.
WP:Too long; didn't read and WP:Verifiability are important. "The good times did not last for long" isn't necessary, "He worked hard to overcome his injury troubles" isn't sourced, "But it was too late to save the franchise" isn't properly construed since they kept their management structure and principle name (Jazz), and using "franchise" is redundant. "Varsity" is also redundant. "He was in the prime of his career, seemingly scoring at will and showing off his flashy dribbling and passing skills in arenas all across the country. But that all changed the following season" and "Interestingly, Baylor had a front row seat for Maravich's performance, because he was serving as head coach of the Jazz at that time" are perfect examples of WP:Too long; didn't read; they don't bring measurable benefit to the reader. Who says it's "respectable?" It's editorializing if not referenced. If you want to replace the remaining contents, not mentioned in my notes, go ahead, but these additions have underlying issues (adding citations for some of them are an easy remedy but others just fall short) and will be held up. If you'd like me to review your work going forward, please let me know. Editing in your sandbox is always a good place to start. Philotimo (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I had my own difference of opinion with this editor’s reverts, but here I have to agree—editorializing has no place on Wikipedia. We don’t use foreshadowing (The good times did not last for long), we don’t tell people what they should think or what they should find interesting. We don’t dress up the facts or make them exciting; we just report them. That’s what Wikipedia is for. That’s my two cents that no one wanted. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it @151.132.206.250: hopefully, they'll see it's a bit too much editorialized content with no citations to boot for it. As noted, they're welcome to add parts of their work back--just not my highlighted parts. Philotimo (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philotimo&oldid=1048419990"